O  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  <J^ 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa, 


BV  110  .B73  1853 
Brown,  J.  Newton  1803-1868. 
The  obligation  of  the 
Sabbath 


THE 


OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH 


THE 


OBLIGATION'  OF  THE  SABBATH; 


A  DISCUSSION 


EEY.  J.  NEWTON  BROWN 


WM.  B.  TAYLOR 


"  If  it  be  a  question  of  words,  and  names,  and  of  your  Law,  look  ye  to  it ! 

And  Gallio  eared  for  none  of  those  things."  Acts  xvni.  15, 17. 

"  The.se  were  more  noble  than  those  in  Thessalonica,  in  that  they  received  the  word 
with  all  readiness  of  mind,  and  searched  the  Scriptures  daily,  whether  tho«e  things 
were  so."  Acts  xvn.  11. 

"  Prove  all  things;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good."  1  Thessalonians  v.  21. 

"One  man  esteemeth  one  day  above  another; — another  esteometh  every  day  alike. 
Let  every  man  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind."  Romans  xiv.  5. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
A.  HART,  LATE  CAREY  AND  HART. 

1853. 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1853,  by 

A.  HART, 

in  the  Office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  in 
and  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


nilLADELTillA  : 
T.   K.   AND  P.   O.  COLLIN"*,  TKIXTKUS. 


" Holy  Scripture  containeih  all  things  necessary  to  salvation:  so 
that  whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved  thereby,  is 
not  to  be  required  of  any  man,  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  article 
of  the  Faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  or  necessary  to  salvation." — 
Thirty-Nike  Articles,  Art.  vi. 

"The  whole  counsel  of  God  concerning  all  things  necessary  for  his 
own  glory,  man's  salvation,  faith,  and  life,  is  either  expressly  set  down, 
or  necessarily  contained  in  the  Holy  Scripture ;  unto  which  nothing  at 
any  time  is  to  be  added,  whether  by  new  revelation  of  the  Spirit, 
or  traditions  of  men." — Presbyterian  and  Baptist  "Confessions  of 
Faith,"  Chap,  i.  sec.  6, 


1* 


DISCUSSION. 


PAGE 

The  Six  PRorosiTioxs x 

Mr.  Brown's  First  Reply 13 

Mr.  Taylor's  First  Reply 20 

Mr.  Brown's  Second  Reply 44 

Mr.  Taylor's  Second  Reply 86 

Mr.  Brown's  Third  Reply 160 

Mr.  Taylor's  Third  Reply  195 


INTRODUCTION 


The  Six  following  Propositions — designed  to  cover  the 
entire  ground  of  Christian  Anti-sabbatarianism  —  were  pub- 
lished by  W.  B.  T.  through  one  of  the  secular  papers  of 
Philadelphia ;  and,  in  an  introductory  paragraph  condemning 
the  prevalent  disposition  to  "judge  one  man's  liberty  of  an- 
other man's  conscience,"  were  ^^confidently  announced  as  inca- 
pahle  of  refutation,  and  challeTiging  dispiite." 

This  challenge  was  accepted  by  J.  N.  B.  in  a  short  Reply 
published  in  the  "Christian  Chronicle;"*  whose  columns 
very  liberally  were  thrown  open  to  the  free  discussion  of  the 
important  question — The  Obligation  oftJie  Fourth  Command- 
ment, or  the  Sci'iptural  Authority  of  the  Sabbath: — a  discussion 
which  few  will  deny  to  be  "seasonable — practical — and  in  its 
relations  to  the  Law  and  the  Gospel — fundamental  and  all- 
pervading." 

*  A  weekly  religious  newspaper  of  Philadelphia,  devoted  to  the 
interests  of  the  Baptist  Churches. 


INTRODUCTION. 


THE    SIX    PPtOPOSITIONS. 


There  is  one,  and  only  one  weekly  Sabbath,  enjoined,  de- 
scribed, or  in  the  remotest  manner  alluded  to,  in  the  whole 
Bible,  whether  Hebrew  or  Christian, — the  Saturday  Sabbath. 
''The  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath."  No  other  day  is  so  desig- 
nated; no  other  day  can  be  the  Bible  Sabbath  {Exod.  xx.  11). 

II. 

This  Sabbath  was  strictly  a  ceremonial  and  Jewish  institu- 
tion {Levit.  xxiii.;  Deut.  v.  15).  An  especial  ''sign''  between 
Grod  and  the  "children  of  Israel'^  (^Exod.  xxxi.  13, 17;  Ezek. 
XX.  12). 

III. 

As  confirmatory  of  this,  Jesus  studiously  and  repeatedly 
violated  the  Sabbath;  (compare  3IatL  xii.  1,  2,  with  Exod. 
xvi.  28,  29,  and  Numh.  xv.  32,  36 ;  also,  John  v.  8,  9,  10, 
with  Jerem.  xvii.  22 ;)  and  justified  this  violation  by  the  direct 
assertion  of  his  right,  and  (by  necessary  implication)  of  his 
intent  to  abolish  it.  "The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and 
not  man  for  the  Sabbath;  therefore  the  Son  of  man  is  Lord 
even  of  the  Sabbath !"  (^Marh  ii.  27,  28.) 

IV. 

"While  the  Sabbath  was  thus  openly  and  constantly  broken 
by  Jesus  and  his  apostles,  they  never,  on  the  other  hand,  eu- 
joined,  or  even  encouraged  its  observance  in  any  manner  what- 
ever, either  by  example,  by  precept,  or  by  slightest  intimation ; 
nor  can  a  single  passage  be  found  among  all  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers,  condemning  the  neglect  of  this  law,  or  reproving 
the  "Sabbath-breaker.'' 


INTRODUCTION. 


On  the  contrary,  tlie  Sabbath  law  was  wholly  and  unequi- 
vocally abrogated  for  the  Grentile  world,  by  the  first  great 
council  of  the  catholic  church,  held  at  Jerusalem  under  the 
immediate  direction  of  "the  apostles  and  elders;"  which  coun- 
cil decreed  that  "the  keeping  of  the  Law"  was  an  unnecessary 
thing,  and  a  burden  not  to  be  laid  upon  those  who  were  not 
Jews.  (Acts  XV.  24,  28,  29.) 

VI. 

Hence  the  subsequent  Epistles,  with  one  voice,  regard  the 
sanctification  of  the  Sabbath  as  a  provisional  type,  fulfilled 
and  superseded  by  the  gospel  dispensation ;  the  "  rest  which 
remaineth  to  the  people  of  God"  being  not  that  of  "the 
seventh  day,"  (nor  that  which  "Joshua  had  given"  in  Canaan,) 
but  that  into  which  they  "who  have  believed  do  enter,"  when 
they  "have  ceased  from  their  own  worlcs."  (Ueh.  iv.  3,  4,  8, 
9,  10.)  "For  by  the  works  of  the  Law,  shall  no  flesh  be 
justified."  (Gal  ii.  16;  Rom.  iii.  28;  ix.  32,  &c.) 

They  uniformly  speak  of  the  Christian  being  "delivered 
from  the  Law,"  the  Decalogue  included  (Rom.  vii.  6,  7); 
which  Decalogue,  though  "  written  and  engraven  in  stones," 
was  thus  entirely  "done  away."   (2  Corinth,  iii.  7.) 

In  the  most  explicit  and  impervertible  terms,  they  aflSrm 
that  "  the  Sabbath-days"  were  the  mere  "  shadow  of  things 
to  come"  (Coloss.  ii.  16);  an  obsolete  "ordinance"  which  had 
been  "blotted  out"  by  the  new  covenant;  and  they  strongly 
condemn  their  "observance"  {Gal.  iv.  10),  as  among  the 
"beggarly  elements"  of  Jewish  bondage. 

Thus  they  decide  obedience  to  the  Fourth  Commandment, 
and  the  "estimation"  of  its  Sabbath,  to  be  a  "weakness  in  the 
faith"  (Rom.  xiv.  1,  5),  even  while  placing  it  on  the  broad 
ground  of  the  liberty  of  private  judgment,  and  the  right  of 
each  to  act  in  conformity  with  his  own  persuasions. 

W.  B.  T. 


THE  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 


[FROM  THE  "CHRISTIAN  CHRONICLE/ 


REPLY  TO"W.  B.T." 

Messrs.  Editors: — 

I  REGRET  sincerely  that  I  have  not  the  leisure  to  meet 
the  request  of  your  correspondent,  and  examine  the  "Six 
Anti-sabbatarian  Propositions'^  of  "W.  B.  T/'  as  fully  as  I 
could  wish  ;  nevertheless,  the  practical  moment  and  gravity  of 
the  occasion,  the  publicity  and  plausibility  of  the  attack  upon 
the  obligation  of  the  Sabbath,  and  the  triumphant  tone  of  the 
assailant,  impel  me  to  offer  a  few  remarks. 

The  writer  says,  "  the  six  following  propositions  may  be 
confidently  announced  as  incapable  of  refutation,  and  challenf^- 
ing  dispute:" — 

First. — "There  is  one,  and  only  one  weekly  Sabbath,  en- 
joined, described,  or  in  the  remotest  manner  alluded  to,  in  the 
whole  Bible,  whether  Hebrew  or  Christian — the  Saturday 
Sabbath.  'The  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath.'  No  other  day  is 
so  designated;  no  other  day  can  be  the  Bible  Sabbath. — 
{^Exod.  XX.  11.)" 

Now  I  venture  to  affirm  that,  in  this  First  Proposition,  "W. 

"^  The   Discussion   lias   been   revised,  and   somewhat   amplified — 
chiefly  by  the  addition  of  illustrative  notes.     The  "  Third  Reply"  of 
W.  B.  T.  has  been  entirely  added. 
2 


14  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Saturday  not  enjoined  in  the  Decalogue.  All  the  Commandments  moral. 

B.  T.''  assumes  what  can  neither  he  granted  nor  proved ; 
namely,  that  the  Sabbath  (or  religious  rest),  enjoined  in  the 
Decalogue,  is  the  Saturday  Sabbath.  The  Decalogue  knows 
nothing  of  Saturday.  It  makes  no  designation  of  the  day. 
It  fixes  only  the  proportion  of  time,  every  seventh  day  for 
devotional  rest,  but  leaves  the  date  of  the  reckoning,  and  of 
course  the  day  itself,  to  be  determined  by  positive  law,  or  some 
other  means.  For  the  Jews  this  had  been  previously  deter- 
mined by  the  miracle  of  the  Manna.  {Exod.  xvi.) 

In  Eden,  the  first  Sabbath  kept  by  man  was  the  first  day 
after  his  own  creation,  a  devotional  rest  with  his  Creator,  to 
prepare  him  for  his  six  days'  toil.  The  very  revolution  of  the 
earth  on  its  axis  forbids  all  mankind  to  observe  precisely  the 
same  moments.  From  the  Decalogue  alone,  I  repeat  it,  no 
man  could  determine  when  the  week  should  begin  or  end )  it 
requires  only  a  certain  definite  proportion  of  our  days  to  be 
observed  religiously,  and  that  proportion  fixed  by  the  Divine 
example  at  the  creation  of  the  world.  This  idea  of  a  Satur- 
day Sabbath,  being  enjoined  in  the  Decalogue,  and  the  only 
one  so  enjoined,  is  a  pure  fancy  of  W.  B.  T.  So  serious  a 
blunder  at  the  beginning  should  abate  a  little  his  tone  of  con- 
fidence. 

Second. — "This  Sabbath  was  strictly  a  ceremonial  and 
Jewish  institution.  {Levit.  xxiii. ;  Deut.  v.  15.)  An  especial 
*sign'  between  God  and  the  ^children  of  Israel.' — {Exod. 
xxxi.  13,  17;  Ezeh.  xx.  12.)'' 

This  Proposition,  so  far  from  being  proved  by  the  texts  re- 
ferred to,  seems  to  me  a  glaring  falsehood.  Every  other  com- 
mand in  the  Decalogue  is  acknowledged  to  be  of  a  moral  na- 
ture. How  happens  it  that  the  fourth  should  be  an  exception  ? 
It  is  not  an  exception.  So  far  from  being  "strictly  ceremo- 
nial," it  is  eminently  moral.  Like  Marriage,  it  is  founded  in 
the  very  constitution  of  man  as  a  social  being.  He  is  no  more 
bound  as  a  religious  being  to  worship  his  Creator,  than  he  is 
bound  as  a  social  being  to  worship  him  in  communities ;  and 


MR.  brown's  first  REPLY.  15 

The  Sabbath  established  at  the  creation.  A  calumnious  accusation. 

for  this,  regular  times  must  be  observed  by  common  consent. 
But  common  consent  cannot  be  expected  without  divine  au- 
thority. For  a  iceeMy  Sabbath,  rather  than  one  oftener  or 
more  seldom,  is  not  of  itself  obvious,  and  every  tenth  day,  or 
every  fifth,  or  any  other  proportion,  might  have  its  advocates ; 
just  as  in  the  case  of  Marriage  there  are  found  men  to  advocate 
Polygamy,  or  Divorce  at  pleasure.  Hence  it  pleased  God  to  de- 
termine the  Law,  both  of  Marriage  and  of  the  Sabbath,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  world.  {Gen.  i.  and  ii.)  And  yet  this  writer 
tells  us  that  the  Sabbath  is  "  strictly  a  Jewish  institution  V^  An 
institution  "made  for  man,^^  established  at  the  beginning  of  the 
world,  and  founded  on  reasons  of  universal  and  perpetual  force, 
a  strictly  Jewish  institution!  An  institution  "strictly  Jew- 
ish," though  instituted  by  God  two  thousand  years  at  least 
before  a  Jew  was  born  !  The  idea  is  preposterous.  The  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  referred  to  teach  no  such  palpable  contradic- 
tion. That  God  gave  this  institution  to  the  Jews,  as  He  gave 
the  rest  of  the  Decalogue,  and  that  its  strict  observance  by 
them  as  a  nation  would  be  "a  sign''  of  His  covenant  with 
them,  proves  nothing  of  the  kind.  This  Second  Proposition, 
then,  if  the  Scriptures  are  to  decide,  is  palpably  false. 

Third. — "As  confirmatory  of  this,  Jesus  studiously  and 
repeatedly  violated  the  Sabbath  (compare  Matt.  xii.  1,  2, 
with  Exod.  xvi.  28,  29,  and  Numh.  xv.  32,  36;  also  John 
V.  8,  9,  10,  with  Jerem.  xvii.  22);  and  justified  this  violation 
by  the  direct  assertion  of  his  right,  and  (by  necessary  implica- 
tion) of  his  intent  to  abolish  it.  '  The  Sabbath  was  made  for 
man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath;  therefore,  the  Son  of  Man 
is  Lord  even  of  the  Sabbath  V—{Mark  ii.  27,  28.)" 

If  this  Proposition  had  been  drawn  up  by  a  Jew,  '^icith  ma- 
lice prepense"  against  our  Lord,  it  would  have  less  surprised  me 
than  it  does  from  a  professed  Christian.  This  is  the  first  time  I 
remember  to  have  ever  seen  "Him  who  knew  no  sin"  charged 
with  a  "studied  and  repeated  violation"  of  the  Law  of  God. 
For,  whether  the  Sabbath  be  of  universal  obligation  or  not,  it 
was  certainly  binding  on  the  Jews,  of  whom  our  Lord  was  one 


16  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Christ  an  observer  of  the  law. 

according  to  the  flesh;  for  he  was  "made  of  a  woman,  made 
under  the  law/'  says  the  Apostle ;  and  if  he  did  thus  violate 
it,  he  was  guilty  of  sin,  and  not  of  a  sin  only,  but  of  a 
crime  which,  by  the  civil  code  of  Moses,  was  punishable  with 
death !  Can  any  man  in  his  sober  senses  believe  such  a  pro- 
position ?  Nor  will  it  avail  to  say,  with  W.  B.  T.,  that  Jesus 
justified  this  violation  by  an  assertion  of  his  right  and  intent 
to  abolish  it.  Even  if  this  were  true  (which  I  do  not  admit), 
that  does  not  relieve  the  case;  for  certainly  it  was  then  in  force 
(as  this  writer's  language  implies),  and  every  Jew,  including 
Jesus  himself,  was  then  bound  by  it.  The  truth  is,  our  Lord 
vindicates  himself  on  very  different  grounds  from  the  charge 
of  breaking  the  Sabbath.  He  reasons  with  his  calumniators 
on  grounds  admitted  by  themselves ;  that  his  works  were  works 
of  necessity,  mercy,  and  piety,  as  much  and  more  so  than  their 
own  constant  practice  of  offering  sacrifice,  &c.,  on  the  Sabbath, 
and,  therefore,  such  as  were  lawful  to  he  done  on  the  Sabbath. 
And  when  he  rises  to  the  tone  of  Majesty,  and  claims  to  be 
himself  "Lord  of  the  Sabbath,"  he  is  careful  to  put  his  claim 
on  the  broad  ground  that  "the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man," 
that  is,  not  for  the  benefit  of  that  peculiar  nation,  but  for  the 
good  of  the  whole  human  race.  This  Third  Proposition,  then, 
is  not  merely  false,  but  calumnious,  and  can  only  be  excused 
on  the  ground  of  radical  mistake. 

Fourth. — "While  the  Sabbath  was  thus  openly  and  con- 
stantly broken  by  Jesus  and  his  apostles,  they  never,  on  the 
other  hand,  enjoined,  or  even  encouraged  its  observance  in  any 
manner  whatever,  either  by  example,  by  precept,  or  by  the 
slightest  intimation ;  nor  can  a  single  passage  be  found  among 
all  the  New  Testament  writers,  condemning  a  neglect  of  this 
law,  or  reproving  the  '  Sabbath-breaker.' " 

This  Proposition  has  more  show  of  truth  than  any  of  the 
preceding,  and  so  far  as  it  is  true  shall  be  respected,  though 
it  opens  by  reaffirming  a  falsehood  already  disproved.  It  is 
true  that  they  (Jesus  and  his  Apostles)  never  in  express  terms 
e7iJoin  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath.     Neither  do  they  enjoin 


MR.  brown's  first  REPLY.  17 

Sabbath-observance  encouraged,  if  not  expressly  enjoined. 

in  express  terms  many  other  acknowledged  duties,  as  for  in- 
stance family  prayer,  or  the  public  worship  of  God.  But  it 
is  not  true  that  they  did  not  encourage  its  observance,  either 
by  example  or  other  intimation  of  its  binding  force.  For  their 
uniform  example,  as  we  have  seen,  was  a  constant  encourage- 
ment of  its  observance  up  to  the  day  of  our  Lord's  death ; 
and  if,  after  his  resurrection,  we  find  them  (as  we  do)  meet- 
ing for  Christian  worship  on  ^^the  first  day  of  the  week,''  and 
observing  that  as  'Hhe  Lord's  day,"  it  only  proves,  not  that 
the  Sabbath  (that  is,  the  day  of  religious  rest)  is  abolished, 
but  that  it  is  now  transferred,  by  the  authority  of  "the  Lord 
of  the  Sabbath,"  to  another  day  of  the  seven,  in  honor  of  a 
work  far  more  glorious  than  the  creation  (^Isai.  Ixv.  17,  18), 
which  was  declared  on  that  day  to  be  finished  by  his  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead.  This  change  also  was  foretold  in  the 
118th  Psalm.  When  "  the  stone  which  the  builders  rejected 
was  made  the  head  of  the  corner,"  the  Church  was  taught  to 
say,  "  This  is  the  day  which  the  Lord  hath  made ;  we  will  re- 
joice, and  be  glad  in  it." 

And,  although  it  is  true  that  we  nowhere  find  them  in  terms 
"  reproving  the  Sabbath-breaker,"  yet  we  do  find  them  con- 
demning "the  ungodly  and  profane,"  with  evident  allusion 
to  the  profanation  of  the  Sabbath,  as  well  as  of  the  Divine 
name.  (See  1  Tim.  i.  8 — 10.)  No  man  can  read  that  passage 
carefully  without  perceiving  that  Paul,  in  his  classification  of 
sinners,  has  his  eye  upon  the  order  of  the  Decalogue.  And  in 
the  existing  state  of  society  and  of  knowledge  that  was  enough. 
(See  Matt  v.  17—19.) 

Fifth. — "On  the  contrary,  the  Sabbath  law  was  wholly 
and  unequivocally  abrogated  for  the  Gentile  world  by  the  first 
great  council  of  the  Catholic  Church,  held  at  Jerusalem,  under 
the  immediate  direction  of  '  the  apostles  and  elders  :'  which 
council  decreed  that  'the  keeping  of  the  Law'  was  an  unneces- 
sary thing,  and  a  burden  not  to  be  laid  upon  those  who  were 
not  Jews.— (^c^s  xv.  24,  28,  29.)" 

2* 


18  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  ceremmiial  Law  alone  repealed. 

This  Proposition  is  a  pure  assumption,  without  a  shadow  of 
proof.  I  meet  it  with  an  unequivocal  denial.  The  key  to  the 
whole  fallacy  is  in  the  wrong  sense  given  by  W.  B.  T.  to  the 
term  '^Law.^'  In  this  case,  as  the  whole  context  shows,  it  is 
to  he  restricted  to  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law.  It  does  not 
therefore  affect  the  original  law  of  the  Sabbath. 

Sixth. — '^  Hence  the  subsequent  Epistles,  with  one  voice, 
regard  the  sanctification  of  the  Sabbath  as  a  provisional  type, 
fulfilled  and  superseded  by  the  gospel  dispensation  :  the  '  rest 
which  remaineth  to  the  people  of  God'  being  not  that  of  '  the 
seventh  day,'  nor  that  which  ^  Joshua  had  given'  in  Canaan, 
but  that  into  which  they  '  who  have  believed  do  enter,'  when 
they  '  have  ceased  from  their  own  worhs.^ — {Heb.  iv.  3,  4,  8, 
9,  10.)  '  For  by  the  works  of  the  law,  shall  no  flesh  be  justi- 
fied.'—(6^a?.  ii.  16;  Rom.  iii.  28;  ix.  32,  &c.)" 

If  the  writer  had  limited  himself  to  saying  that  ^^  he  who 
ceases  from  his  own  works  (for  justification)  does  enter 
into  rest,"  by  faith  in  the  Redeemer,  and  looks  forward  with 
joyful  hope  to  a  purer  "rest,  which  remaineth  to  the  people 
of  Grod,"  I  could  cordially  agree  with  him.  But  his  Pro- 
position goes  much  further,  and  affirms  that  the  Sabbath 
was  merely  "  a  provisional  type,  fulfilled  and  superseded  by 
the  Grospel  dispensation."  This  I  deny,  and  challenge  him  to 
the  proof.  It  certainly  is  not  found  in  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews. 

When  the  Scriptures  speak  of  the  Christian  as  "  delivered 
from  the  law,  the  Decalogue  included,"  they  refer  to  it  as  a 
conditional  covenant  of  life,  not  as  a  rule  of  moral  obligation. 
This  momentous  distinction,  absolutely  fundamental  to  a  right 
understanding  of  the  New  Testament,  W.  B.  T.  overlooks  in  a 
way  which  leads  to  the  most  frightful  Antinomian  conse- 
quences. I  have  only  time  here  to  indicate  this,  not  to  de- 
scribe them.  The  passages  quoted  from  Colossians  and  Grala- 
tians  refer  not  to  the  Sabbath  of  Genesis,  and  of  the  Deca- 
logue, but  only  to  the  ceremonial  fasts  and  festivals  of  the  Jews ; 
which  in  the  plural  are  often  styled  "Sabbaths,"  or  days  of  rest. 


inR.  brown's  first  reply.  ^^  19 


stated  times  of  public  worship  necessary. 


This  is  clear  from  the  context.     The  same  remark  applies  to 
Rom.  xiv. 

For,  if  Paul's  language  in  that  chapter  be  taken  without  any 
limitation,  as  affirming  that  every  day  is  to  be  esteemed  alike 
by  enlightened  Christians  (as  W.  B.  T.  supposes),  it  goes 
beyond  the  Apostle's  aim  (which  is  the  removal  of  Jewish 
prejudices),  and  strikes  equally  against  the  Christians'  "  Lord's 
Day,"  as  against  the  Sabbath  of  the  Decalogue.  And  where, 
then,  let  me  ask,  is  there  any  law,  or  institution  for  public 
worship,  in  the  New  Testament  ?  According  to  W.  B.  T., 
there  is  none.  The  Sabbath  is  blotted  out;  the  division  of  time 
into  weeks  is  abolished ;  men  may  pursue  their  worldly  labors 
without  cessation ;  Christian  worship  may  be  maintained,  inter- 
rupted, or  abandoned  at  pleasure ;  and  the  religion  of  Christ, 
which  was  above  all  others  intended  to  unite,  fraternize,  and 
spiritualize  the  human  race,  leaves  them  worse  than  Judaism, 
or  even  Paganism,  without  any  law  or  provision  whatever  for 
the  accomplishment  of  its  magnificent  design.  A  universal 
religion  like  Christianity  may  and  indeed  must  dispense  with 
one  local  centre  of  worship,  like  Jerusalem  {John  iv.  21 — 24), 
but  it  cannot  therefore  dispense  with  stated  times,  sacred  to 
social  repose,  instruction*  and  devotion. 

With  the  writer's  arguments  I  have  now  done.  I  agree 
with  him  that  every  man  should  have  liberty  of  conscience. 
Conscience  is  a  very  sacred  thing.  But  if  it  is  not  true  to 
the  Law  of  God,  it  is  no  better  than  a  false  chronometer. 

J.  N.  B. 


THE  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 


REPLY  TO  ^'J.  N.  B." 


PART  I. 

**  Stand  fast,  therefore,  in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  ua 
free." — Galatians  v.  1. 


Messrs.  Editors  : — 

By  your  favor,  I  would  occupy  a  small  space  in  your 
paper,  with  a  few  remarks  upon  "  the  Obligation  of  the  Sab- 
bath," in  reply  to  the  able  article  of  your  correspondent  '"''  J. 
N.  B.,"  which  appeared  in  a  late  number  of  the  Christian 
Chronicle;  and  which  reviewed,  in  order,  the  "Six  Proposi- 
tions" on  which  Christian  Anti-sabbatarianism  may  be  sup- 
posed to  rely. 

I.  To  the  First  Proposition,  that  the  Bible  knows  but  one 
weekly  Sabbath — "  the  seventh  day"  of  the  fourth  command- 
ment, J.  N.  B.  replies  (without  "venturing"  an  unqualified 
negation),  "The  Decalogue  knows  nothing  of  Saturday. 
It  makes  no  designation  of  the  day.  It  fixes  only  the  pro- 
portion of  time,  every  seventh  day  for  devotional  rest,  but 
leaves  the  date  of  the  reckoning,  and  of  course  the  day 
itself,  to  be  determined  by  positive  law,  or  some  .other 
means."  I  must  here  thank  my  friend  for  his  admission  that 
the  particular  day  of  the  commandment  belongs  to  "  positive 
law,"  and  therefore  not  to  natural  or  moral  law  :  it  will  help 
to  elucidate  the  Second  Proposition.  There  is  one  erroneous 
assertion  in  the  above,  however,  which  demands  correction.  It 
is  not  true  that  the  Sabbath  law  "  fixes  onli/  the  proportion  of 


MR.  Taylor's  first  reply.  21 

A  particular  day  enjoined  by  the  law.  The  Manna— an  authority. 

time"  for  rest.  In  every  variety,  and  on  every  occasion  of  its 
enunciation,  the  law  pertinaciously  requires  a  particular  day 
for  its  observance  ;  and  by  whatever  means  '^  the  date  of  the 
reckoning/'  and  the  identity  of  this  period  may  be  discovered, 
it  is  obvious  that,  if  once  ascertained,  it  becomes  the  exclusive 
object  of  the  law's  consideration,  and  engrosses  its  entire  au- 
thority. It  is  not  true  that  any  or  "  every  seventh  day  for 
devotional  rest"  will  meet  its  requirements.  Wherever  the 
Sabbath  is  enjoined,  with  a  remarkable  reiteration  it  uniformly 
and  expressly  limits  it  to  "  the  seventh  day."  The  command 
leaves  no  crevice  for  evasion. 

But  "  the  Decalogue  knows  nothing  of  Saturday  !" — that  is, 
not  that  "  Saturday"  was  unknown  in  ancient  Hebrew — being 
plain  modern  Saxon — but  the  law  does  not  define  its  terms, 
and  tell  which  is  "  the  seventh  day."  "  From  the  Decalogue 
alone,  I  repeat  it,  no  man  could  determine  when  the  week 
should  begin  or  end."  Most  profound  and  undisputed  truth  ! 
And  the  law  does  not  define  (which  is  far  more  practicable) 
the  very  important  word  "work."  "From  the  Decalogue 
alone,  no  man  could"  possibly  know  what  the  word  signified. 
And  in  point  of  fact,  the  first  recorded  case  of  conviction, 
under  the  sabbath  law,  exhibits  a  difficulty  of  construction 
upon  this  very  word.  (Numb.  xv.  34.)  But  it  has  never 
yet  been  heard  of,  even  among  "  the  lawyers,"  that  a  doubt 
could  be  raised  as  to  its  enacted  day.  Every  child  that  could 
count  its  fingers  knew  perfectly  which  was  "  the  seventh  day ;" 
— ^just  as  perfectly,  and  just  in  the  same  manner,  as  he  knew 
how  many  constituted  'Seven,'^ — by  unquestioned  accep- 
tation. An  authority  for  "  the  date  of  the  reckoning,  and  of 
course  for  the  day  itself,"  will  be  found  in  Fxod.  xvi.  27. 
That  the  received  computation  is  identical  with  the  ancient — 
that  Saturday  is  "  the  Sabbath  enjoined  in  the  Decalogue" — is 
as  certain  as  human  knowledge  can  be,  even  concerning  the 
Bible  itself.  No  historical  monument  is  more  reliable  than 
the  Israelite's  traditionary  Sabbath.     On  one  point  at  least, 


22  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

No  Sabbath  in  Genesis.  Its  first  enactment,  in  Exodus. 

Jews,  Christians,  and  Mohammedans,  are  happily  agreed,  and 
that  is  "  when  the  week  should  begin  and  end."  J.  N.  B. 
will  permit  me  to  remind  him  that,  if  Sunday  is  really  the  day 
on  which  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead,  we  have  the  testimony  of 
all  the  evangelists  that  it  is  ''  the  first  day  of  the  week,"  and 
not  "  the  seventh  day." 

"In  Eden,"  says  your  correspondent,  "the  first  Sabbath 
kept  by  man  was  the  first  day  after  his  own  creation  !"  It  is 
much  to  be  regretted  that  he  has  felt  at  liberty  to  make  so  im- 
portant an  addition  to  the  testimony  of  Scripture.  Certainly 
no  such  account  is  to  be  found  in  the  Bible,  nor  anything 
similar  to  it.  In  Exod.  xvi.  25,  J.  N.  B.  will  find  a  narrative 
of  "  the  first  Sabbath  kept  by  man."  In  vain  shall  we  search 
for  even  a  hint  that,  during  the  twenty-five  hundred  years  pre- 
vious, man  ever  did  keep,  or  ever  was  required  to  keep,  a  Sab- 
bath. But  we  are  told  that  Adam  rested  "  the  first  day  after 
his  own  creation !" — in  the  name  of  wonder — from  what?  To 
assume  that  the  declaration  in  Gen.  ii.  3,  "God  blessed  the 
seventh  day  and  sanctified  it,"  means  that  man  "  sanctified 
it,"  requires  rather  too  great  an  exercise  of  "  fancy"  for  a 
sober  logician.*  I  dislike  retort,  but  I  cannot  help  reminding 
my  friend  J.  N.  B.  that  "  so  serious  a  blunder  at  the  beginning 
should  abate  a  little  his  tone  of  confidence." 

The  First  Proposition,  then,  that  there  is  but  one  Bible 
Sabbath,  stands  wholly  unimpaired.  No  one  can  assail  it  by 
"  venturing  to  affirm."  Nothing  will  answer  but  a  chapter 
and  verse,  pointing  out  a  "  Sabbath"  other  than  that  of  the 
fourth  commandment — "  the  seventh  day."  Such  an  appeal 
has  not  as  yet  been  even  attempted. 

II.  The  Second  Proposition,  that  the  Sabbath  was  strictly  a 
ceremonial  and  Jewish  institution,  seems  to  your  correspondent 

*  "  The  words  are  a  narrative  of  what  God  did  himself;  but  do  not 
contain  a  precept  of  what  Adam  should  do."  Dr.  Gill.  (Bodi/  of 
Divinity,  vol.  iii.  book  iii.  chap.  8.) 


MR.  Taylor's  first  reply.  23 

The  Sabbath  not  moral,  since  it  has  been  changed. 

"  a  glaring  falsehood.  Every  other  command  in  the  Decalogue 
is  acknowledged  to  be  of  a  moral  nature.  How  happens  it 
that  the  fourth  should  be  an  exception?''  Let  us  examine: 
the  particular  clay  rexjuired  by  this  command,  ^^  the  seventh  day/' 
is  also  an  integral  portion  of  the  Decalogue.  Is  it  therefore 
'^  acknowledged  to  be  of  a  moral  nature?''  If  so,  why  has  it 
been  changed  ?  Why  does  my  friend  J.  N.  B.  entirely  neglect 
it  for  another  day  not  "  in  the  Decalogue !"  Can  moral  laws 
thus  change  ?  The  answer  has  been  already  furnished  by  the 
previous  assertion  of  my  friend,  that  the  particular  day  belongs 
to  "positive  law/'  so  that,  by  his  own  showing,  2k part  of  the 
Decalogue  is  not  "  of  a  moral  nature,"  since  a  particular  day 
certainly  is  contained  therein.  He  even  extends  his  admission 
further,  and  very  correctly  states  that  a  "weekly  Sabbath, 
rather  than  one  oftener,  or  more  seldom,  is  not  of  itself  obvious, 
and  every  tenth  day,  or  every  fifth,  or  any  other  proportion, 
might  have  its  advocates."  Now  this  vague,  problematical 
interval  of  time,  "  not  of  itself  obvious,"  must  either  be  ac- 
cepted as  part  of  the  moral  law,  or  I  hand  back  to  my  friend 
the  question,  ''how  happens  it  that  it  should  be  an  excep- 
tion?" 

But  the  institution  was  "  ^  made  for  man,'  established  at  the 
beginning  of  the  world,  and  founded  on  reasons  of  universal 
and  perpetual  force."  Indeed!  what  are  these  perpetual 
reasons?  Grod  "rested  the  seventh  day,"jwherefore  thoushalt 
keep  the  Jirst!  Do  no  work  on  Sunday,  "  because  that  in  it" 
God  did  not  rest  "  from  all  his  work !"  "  Thou  wast  a  servant 
in  the  land  of  Egypt,"  and  "  there/ore''  must  the  day  be  kept ! 
How  comes  it  that  all  these  "  reasons  of  universal  and  per- 
petual force"  have  been  so  stultified?  That  the  institution 
was  "  established  at  the  beginning  of  the  world,"  J.  N.  B. 
has  neither  proved  nor  attempted  to  prove.  Till  he  does,  I 
simply  "  venture"  to  deny  it.  "  An  institution  '  strictly  Jew- 
ish,' instituted  by  God  two  thousand  years,  at  least,  before  a 
Jew  was  born.     The  idea  is  preposterous  !"   Very  true.    And 


24  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  Sabbath  a  "  sign ;"  and  thus  peculiar  to  Israel. 

throughout  Genesis,  we  shall  not  find  one  syllable  concerning 
a  "  Sabbath-day/' 

The  passages  in  Exod.  xxxi.  13,  17,  and  Ezeh.  xx.  12, 
characterizing  the  Sabbath  as  an  especial  "  sign"  between  God 
and  the  children  of  Israel,  "  prove  nothing''  (says  your  corre- 
spondent), as  to  its  "  strictly  Jewish"  character.  "  Now  it 
does  not  seem  easy,"  as  Paley  has  well  observed  (ilfor.  Philos. 
B.  V.  chap.  Y),  "  to  understand  how  the  Sabbath  could  be  a 
sign  between  God  and  the  people  of  Israel,  unless  the  observ- 
ance of  it  was  peculiar  to  that  people,  and  designed  to  be  so." 

Bishop  Warburton  admirably  argues  that  ^'  nothing  but 
a  rite,  by  institution  of  a  positive  law,  could  serve  for  a  *  sign' 
or  token  of  a  covenant,  between  God  and  a  particular  selected 
people )  for,  besides  its  use  for  a  remembrance  of  the  covenant, 
it  was  to  serve  as  a  '  partition  wall'  to  separate  them  from  other 
nations.  But  a  natural  duty  has  no  capacity  of  being  thus 
employed;  because  a  practice  observed  by  all  nations  would 
obliterate  every  trace  of  a  ^  sign'  or  token  of  a  covenant  made 
with  o?ie."     {Bivine  Legation,  B.  iv.  sec.  6,  note  ^^rrrr.") 

That  the  Sabbath  law  is  not  a  moral  one  is  apparent  from 
the  fact  that  it  actually  was  "  peculiar  to  the  Jew."  Through- 
out all  historyj  we  discover  no  trace  of  a  Sabbath  among  the 
nations  of  antiquity.  This  is  incompatible  with  the  notion  of 
its  being  a  natural  duty.  Again,  a  ^^  moral"  law,  being 
founded  on  the  natural  and  universal  relations  existing  between 
man  and  his  Creator,  and  between  man  and  man,  must  be  as 
immutable  as  those  relations.  Now  the  Sabbath  has  been 
changed  in  its  period,  changed  in  the  reasons  for  its  observance, 
changed  in  the  character  of  its  requirements,  and  changed  in 
its  sanction.  How  can  that  which  has  been  so  completely 
superseded  now  be  or  ever  have  been  a  moral  law  ? 

But,  in  addition  to  all  this  overwhelming  evidence,  we  are 
not  without  the  direct  and  explicit  testimony  of  the  Scriptures 
upon  this  point.  "  The  Sabbath-days,"  says  Paul,  in  Col.  ii. 
16,  17,  ^^  are  a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come."     This,  apart 


MR.  TAYLOR'S  FIRST  REPLY.  25 

The  Sabbath  a  "shadow."  An  occa5ion  of  reciprocal  surprise. 

from  all  the  previous  considerations,  would  itself  be  conclusive. 
No  one  will  pretend  that  a  shadow  or  type  can  be  other  than 
ritual.  It  will  not  do  to  "  venture  to  affirm'^  that  this  does 
"  not  refer  to  the  Sabbath  of  the  Decalogue."  The  assumption 
is  "  without  a  shadow  of  proof.  I  meet  it  with  an  unequivocal 
denial.''  The  language  of  the  text  is  comprehensive  and  un- 
qualified. The  weekly  Sabbaths  are  certainly  at  least  as  much 
included  in  the  phrase  "  Sabbath-days"  as  any  other  '^  ceremo- 
nial fasts  and  festivals  of  the  Jews." — '^  This  is  clear  from  the 
context,"  and  confirmed  by  the  uniform  tenor  of  the  other 
Epistles.  He  who  asserts  a  limitation  of  its  application  must 
clearly  prove  it.  In  no  single  instance,  is  the  word  so  limited 
in  the  whole  New  Testament.  Now,  is  it  credible  that  the 
Apostle  should  discard  "  Sabbath-days,"  without  any  excep- 
tion, and  yet  use  the  word  in  an  unfamiliar  sense,  and  intend 
his  readers  still  to  be  bound  by  "  an  holy  day  ?"  "  The  idea 
is  preposterous."  We  are  therefore  justified  in  the  confident 
announcement  that  the  Sabbath  ii^as  a  ^^  strictly  Jewish  and 
ceremonial  institution." 

III.  The  Third  Proposition,  that  Jesus  studiously  and  re- 
peatedly violated  the  Sabbath,  J.  N.  B.,  by  a  circuitous  inti- 
mation, charges  '^  with  malice  prepense  :"  but  when  he  boldly 
avows  that,  "  if  he  did  thus  violate  it,  he  was  guilty  of  sin  [!], 
and  not  of  a  sin  only,  but  of  a  crime,  which  by  the  civil  code  of 
Moses  was  punishable  with  death !"  and  that,  as  the  law  "  was 
then  in  force,  every  Jew,  including  Jesus  himself,  was  then  bound 
by  it !"  I  must  confess  an  astonishment  at  least  equal  to  his 
own  ;  and  so  we  stand,  "  well  met"  in  mutual  amaze !  I  am 
compelled  to  say  with  him,  that  from  a  Jew  "it  would  have 
less  surprised  me  than  it  does  from  a  professed  Christian."  I 
hope,  however,  to  be  able  to  relieve  him  from  his  surprise, 
much  more  completely  than  I  can  expect  to  be  relieved  myself. 

If  Jesus  has  been  '^  charged  with  a  '  repeated  violation'  of 
the  law  of  God,"  there  is  one  circumstance,  at  least,  that  ap- 
3 


26   -         ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Application  of  the  word  "  work."  An  explicit  command  violated. 

pears  to  give  some  color  of  justice  to  the  charge.  We  find 
that  the  word  '^work'^  was  used,  in  the  fourth  commandment, 
with  a  remarkable  latitude  of  application.  The  lighting  of  a 
fire,  the  gathering  of  grain  or  food,  the  picking  of  sticks,  un- 
necessary walking,  even  the  carrying  of  the  slightest  burden, 
all  fell  within  the  legal  construction  of  the  prohibition.  Thus 
in  Jer.  xvii.  21 :  "  Take  heed  to  yourselves,  and  bear  no  burden 
on  the  Sabbath  clay.''  Now  in  the  very  face  of  this  express 
interdict,  when  Jesus  had,  on  the  Sabbath  day,  restored  the 
impotent  man  at  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  he  "  saith  unto  him, 
arise,  take  up  thy  hed  and  walk.''  (John  v.  8.)  Considering 
how  entirely  superfluous  this  command  was,  either  to  the 
miracle,  or  to  its  manifestation  (the  '^arising"  and  "walking" 
being  everything,  the  ''carrying"  nothing),  it  is  impossible 
not  to  regard  this — as  his  contemporaries  regarded  it — as  a 
glaring  and  ''  studious  violation"  of  the  Jewish  law.  He 
could  scarcely  have  exhibited  to  his  startled  countrymen  a 
more  striking  practical  affirmation  that  their  venerated  Sab- 
bath was  but  ''a  shadow  of  things  to  come"  (Col.  ii.  17), 
having  in  itself  no  moral  sanctity.  I  think  it  would  puzzle 
even  my  ingenious  and  respected  friend  J.  N.  B.  to  show  how 
this  infraction  of  the  literal  statute  can  be  resolved  into  "  a 
work  of  necessity,  mercy,  and  piety,"  or  into  one  "  lawful  to 
be  done  on  the  Sabbath;"  and  I  hope  he  will  have  the  candor 
to  acknowledge  that  the  Proposition  under  review  cannot,  with 
justice,  be  stigmatized  as  either  "  false"  or  "  calumnious." 

Again,  when  the  disciples  gathered  grain  on  the  Sabbath 
day,  they  evidently  did  that  which  under  the  fourth  command- 
ment required  extenuation,  and  for  which  extenuation  was 
given.  "  Have  ye  never  read  what  David  did  when  he  had 
need,  and  was  an  hungered,"  doing  that  ''which  was  not  law- 
fid?'^  And  by  this  very  parallel,  Jesus  clearly  teaches  us  that 
the  institution  of  the  Sabbath,  precisely  like  that  of  the  show- 
bread,  was  a  "positive"  one,  for  the  breach  of  which  hunger 
was  a  sufficient  justification.     Thus  we  corroborate,  by  addi- 


MR.  Taylor's  first  reply.  27 

Sabbath-breaking  excused  by  hunger.  The  law  subservient  to  man. 

tional  evidence,  the  preceding  Proposition,  with  which,  indeed, 
the  present  one  is  closely  connected.  Think  you  he  would 
have  justified  a  slight  infringement  on  the  sixth,  the  eighth, 
or  the  tenth  commandment — on  any  moral  law,  in  short,  by 
the  plea  of  hunger? — -that  he  could  ever  have  permitted  the 
doing  of  that ''  which  is  not  lawful"  in  natural  duty? — that  he 
could  yet  appeal  to  the  precedent  of  the  priests  (who,  by  the 
necessity  of  their  office,  impinge  upon  the  literal  inhibition  of 
the  fourth  commandment),  and  hold  the  ^'unlawful"  doer — 
"guiltless?"     The  question  needs  but  to  be  asked! 

But,  further  than  this,  he  asserts,  ''  The  Sabbath  was  made 
for  man — not  man  for  the  Sabbath."  The  institution  is 
subordinate  to  the  man,  and  not  the  man  to  the  institution.* 
Could  he  have  said  this  of  any  law  but  a  positive  or  ceremonial 
one  ?  Assuredly  not  ! — Man  is  subordinate  to  "moral"  law, 
and  not  moral  law  to  the  man.  "  AYere  the  observation  of  the 
Sabbath  a  natural  duty,"  justly  remarks  Bishop  Warburton, 
"  it  is  certain  man  was  made  for  the  Sabbath;  the  end  of  his 
creation  being  for  the  observance  of  the  moral  laiv.  On  the 
contrary,  all  positive  institutions  were  made  for  man."  (Div. 
Legation,  B.  iv.  sec.  6,  note.^  This  furnishes  another  proof 
that  the  fourth  commandment  is  positive,  ceremonial,  and 
Jewish. 

Singularly  enough,  J.  N.  B.  quotes  a  part  of  this  very 
passage  to  confirm  its  obligation  !  "  'The  Sabbath  was  made 
for  man/  that  is,  not  for  the  benefit  of  that  peculiar  nation, 
but  for  the  good  of  the  whole  human  race."  To  read  this 
alone,  one  would  think  that  the  old  Pharisees  had  been  sad 
Sahhath-hreakers,  and  that  Jesus  was  trying  to  reform  them — 
by  preaching  up  the  universal  obligation  of  this  glorious  in- 
stitution; while  every  Bible  student  knows  that  the  fact  is 

■^  "A  principle  is  here  laid  clown,  which  it  is  clearly  impossible  to 
confine  to  the  Sabbath  alone.  Rather  it  must  extend  to  the  whole  circle 
of  outward  ordinances."  Trench.   [Notes  on  the  Miracles,  ch.  xix.) 


28  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

A  curious  syllogism.  "  The  Lord  of  the  Sabbath." 

just  the  contrary.  It  was  Jesus  who  was  the  '^  Sabbath- 
breaker'^  (no  offence  to  my  friend  this  time,  I  hope; — no 
great  harm  in  breaking  "  shadows/'  you  know),  and  he  was 
endeavoring  to  satisfy  the  clamors  of  its  rigid  observers,  by 
teaching  them  that  it  had  not  this  supreme  authority  over 
man  which  they  supposed,  but  that  it  was  "  made  for  man/' 
Now  what  sad  nonsense  does  your  correspondent  make  of  this 
important  passage :  "  You  accuse  me  of  breaking  the  Sabbath, 
but  it  was  made,  ^not  for  the  benefit  of  the  Jews  alone,  'but 
for  the  good  of  the  whole  human  race!'  Therefore  your 
charge  is  groundless."  This  is  logic,  with  a  vengeance.  The 
truth  is,  this  much  perverted  quotation  was  pronounced — not 
as  a  check  upon  the  Anti-sabbatarian,  but  to  counteract  the 
Sahhatorian ;  and  honesty  requires  that  it  should  not  be 
employed  for  an  opposite  purpose. 

Lastly,  after  Jesus  had  thus  most  distinctly  and  emphati- 
cally denied  the  morality  of  the  Sabbath  by  asserting,  first, 
that  hunger  excused  its  breach,  and  secondly,  that  it  was  en- 
tirely subservient  to  man  (neither  of  which  could  possibly  be 
the  case  with  any  moral  duty),  he  concluded  his  lesson  with 
the  memorable  declaration,  ''  Therefore  the  Son  of  man  is 
Lord  even  of  the  Sabbath  !''  That  is  hecause  it  was  a  posi- 
tive ordinance.  How  was  he  Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  except  by 
having  authority  to  alter  or  control  it  ?*  And  how  would 
this  reply  have  any  force  to  the  charge  against  him,  unless 
he  designed  to  teach  that,  being  Master  of  the  institution,  he 
could  justly  do  that  which,  without  such  authority,  he  could 
not  lawfully  do  ?  To  what  purpose  did  he  assert  his  right 
to  disobey  the  commandment,  if  the  very  claim  did  not  ne- 
cessarily infer  an  exertion  of  that  right?     ''If  I  have  done 

■^  "The  Sabbath  day  was  instituted  for  men's  cause,  and  not  men 
made  for  the  Sabbath  day.  The  Son  of  man  came  not  to  destroy  men, 
but  to  save  them:  and  for  that  cause  hath  he  power — yea,  clean  to 
take  away  the  Sabbath,  so  oft  as  man's  health  so  requireth." — {Para- 
phrase of  Erasmus  on  Mark  ii.) 


MR.  Taylor's  first  reply.  29 

9 

The  "  charge"  of  violation  not  new.  "  Sabbath-breaking"  unreproved. 

what  by  this  positive  ordiuance  'was  not  lawful/  know  that 
I  am  Lord  of  the  Institution  !  And  this  is  my  warrant  for 
what  I  have  done." 

I  sincerely  trust  that  J.  N.  B.  will  now  be  "less  surprised" 
at  the  conclusion  arrived  at  than  he  was  on  its  former  an- 
nouncement. The  passages  in  Matt.  xii.  2,  Mark  ii.  24, 
John  V.  10,  16,  18,  ix.  16,  must  have  escaped  his  memory, 
when  he  observed  :  "  This  is  the  first  time  I  remember  to 
have  seen  '  him  who  knew  no  sin'  charged  with  a  '  studied 
and  repeated  violation'  of  the  law."  While  thus  confii-ming 
the  charge,  I  hope  I  shall  be  relieved  from  the  imputation  of 
exhibiting  any  "  malice  prepense." 

TV.  The  Fourth  Proposition,  that  the  observance  of  the 
Sabbath  is  never  once  enjoined  or  even  encouraged  by  the 
New  Testament  writers,  and  that,  on  the  other  hand,  "Sab- 
bath-breaking" is  never  once  condemned  by  them,  "has 
more  show  of  truth,"  says  my  obliging  friend,  "  than  any  of 
the  preceding."  Considering  upon  what  impregnable  founda- 
tions of  Scriptural  authority  these  have  been  established, 
such  an  encomium  is  as  satisfactory  as  it  is  ingenuous;  and 
leaves  but  little  occasion  for  any  further  illustration  of  this 
position.  A  single  passage  has  been  diffidently  suggested  by 
J.  N.  B.  It  is  where  Paul  reminds  Timothy  that  "  the  law" 
is  made  "for  the  lawless  and  disobedient,  for  the  ungodly 
and  for  sinners,  for  unholy  and  profane/^  (1  Tim.  i.  9.) 
After  so  liberal  a  concession,  courtesy  alone  would  forbid  my 
being  captious  with  his  quotation.  I  therefore  leave  it,  con- 
gratulating him  on  its  applicability,  and  wishing  him  joy  of 
all  its  deductions. 

The  comprehensiveness  of  the  subject  has  already  so  ex- 
tended the  present  communication,  that  I  am  compelled  re- 
luctantly to  defer  the  consideration  of  the  two  concluding 
Propositions  to  another  occasion. 

W.  B.  T. 
3* 


30  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 


The  Jewish  Law  resisted  by  the  Gentile  converts. 


PART  11. 

"If  the  Son  therefore  shall  make  you  free,  ye  shall  be  free  in- 
deed."— John  viii.  36. 

"Let  no  man,  therefore,  judge  you  in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  re- 
spect of  an  holy  day,  or  of  the  new  moon,  or  of  the  Sabbath  days." — 
COLOSSIANS  ii.  16. 


Upon  tlie  two  remaining — and  the  two  most  vital — assump- 
tions of  Anti-sabbatarianism,  I  find  your  correspondent  J.  N.  B. 
and  myself  directly  at  issue. 

V.  The  Fifth  Proposition,  that  the  Sabbath  was  formally 
abrogated  by  the  first  council  at  Jerusalem,  receives  from 
J.  N.  B.  a  criticism  equally  concise  and  emphatic.  "This 
Proposition/'  says  he,  "  is  a  pure  assumption,  without  a' 
shadow  of  proof.  I  meet  it  with  an  unequivocal  denial.'' 
It  will  be  necessary  for  me,  therefore,  to  refresh  my  friend's 
memory  concerning  some  of  the  circumstances  of  this  import- 
ant judicial  deliberation. 

It  will  be  remembered  that,  when  the  church  threw  open 
its  doors  to  the  Gentile  world,  a  warm  contention  almost  im- 
mediately arose  between  the  Pharisaic  Christians  and  these 
new  converts,  respecting  the  obligations  of  the  Jewish  law ; 
the  former — who  claimed  Jesus  as  the  Jewish  Messiah,  "  He 
which  should  have  redeemed  Israel" — insisting  "  that  it  was 
needful  to  circumcise  them,  and  to  require  them  fo  keep  tlie 
LaiD  of  Moses  f^  and  the  latter,  as  naturally  rejecting  what- 
ever they  found  burdensome  in  that  code,  as  forming  no  ne- 
cessary part  of  the  evidences,  or  of  the  doctrines,  which  had 
attracted  them  to  the  Christian  fold.  It  will  also  be  remem- 
bered that,  in  consequence  of  this  "  no  small  dissension  and 
disputation"  in  the  church  at  Antioch,  it  became  necessary 
to  invoke  the  authority  of  the  catholic  Church ;  and  it  was 


MR.  Taylor's  first  reply.  31 

Three  Mosaic  enactments  alone  enforced. 

accordingly  "  determined  that  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  certain 
other  of  them,  should  go  up  to  Jerusalem  unto  the  apostles 
and  elders,  about  this  question."  The  great  subject  thus 
presented  for  the  consideration  and  adjudication  of  this  general 
council  was  evidently  the  wTioJe  '^  Law  of  Moses,''  and  the 
extent  of  its  obligation  (Acts  xv.  5) ;  and  the  decision  arrived 
at,  after  "  there  had  been  much  disputing/'  excepted  from  ab- 
rogation but  three  prohibitions  of  the  "LaV  as  "necessary 
things"  to  be  abstained  from ;  namely,  idolatry^  fornication, 
and  the  eating  of  things  strangled,  and  hlood.^  As  Paley 
very  correctly  states,  "  The  observance  of  the  Sabbath  was  not 
one  of  the  articles  enjoined  by  the  Apostles,  in  the  fifteenth 
chapter  of  Acts,  upon  them  '  which  from  among  the  Gentiles 
were  turned  unto  God.' ''     {Mor.  Phil  B.  v.  ch.  7.) 

If  my  friend  J.  X.  B.  will  still  contend  that  this  "  does  not 
affect  the  original  law  of  the  Sabbath,''  that  "the  key  to  the 
whole  fallacy  is  in  the  wrong  sense  given  by  the  writer  to  the 
term  Law,"  and  that  "in  this  case,  as  the  lohole  context  shows, 
it  is  to  be  restricted  to  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law,"  I  can  only 
express  a  deep  regret  that  he  has  read  the  Scriptures  to  so 
little  purpose,  as  thus  glaringly  to  misconstrue  their  teaching. 
"  The  whole  context  shows,"  incontrovertihlj/,  that  the  eccle- 
siastical decree  was  not  "  restricted  to  the  Jewish  ceremonial 
law,"  by  its  actually  specifying  two  provisions  of  the  moral 
law  !  So  "  wrong  a  sense  given  to  the  term  Law,"  by  my 
friend,  is  really  worse  than  a  fallacy  I 

The  obvious  reason  why  these  two  points  of  the  moral  law 
were  at  all  referred  to  was  that  they  were  the  only  ones  likely 
to  be  transgressed  by  those  just  emancipated  from  the  Roman 
Paganism.     Otherwise  they  would  no  more  have  been  noticed 

*  Irenseus,  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Ambrosius,  Jerome,  and  Augustine, 
in  quoting  or  alluding  to  the  Jerusalem  canon,  all  omit  the  "things 
strangled:"  evidently  considering  this  included  in  the  prohibition  of 
"blood." 


32  ABROGATION  OP  THE  SABBATH. 

No  Gentile  Sabbath  before  conTersion :  none  after. 

than  robhery  or  murder  ;  and  J.  N.  B.  would  then  have  had 
some  slight  chance  of  exercising  his  ingenuity  in  maintaining 
his  "  fallacy.'^*  It  is  very  certain  that  these  Gentiles  never 
were  bound  by  the  Jewish  Sabbath  law  previous  to  their  con- 
version ;  and  it  will  not  be  doubted  that  they  would  have 
found  a  strict  observance  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  not  the  least 
burdensome  portion  of  "  the  law  of  Moses/'  which  the  Pha- 
risees had  commanded  them  to  keep.  When,  therefore,  the 
mother  Church  at  Jerusalem  by  official  edict  resolved  ''  to  lay 
upon  them  no  gi^eater  burden  than  these  necessary  things" 
above  mentioned,  it  is  impossible  to  include  the  fourth  com- 
mandment as  obligatory  upon  them,  without  grossly  pervert- 
ing the  language  and  the  purport  of  Scripture. 

But,  even  granting,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that  the 
canonical  decision  was  "restricted  to  the  Jewish  ceremonial 
law,"  the  admission  would  not  help  my  friend  a  particle.  As 
the  Sabbath  law  has  already  been  fully  shown  to  belong  to 
that  law  (vide  Proposition  II.),  it  would  still  necessarily  fall 
within  the  recognized  province  of  the  ecclesiastical  judgment, 
and  its  omission  would  be  quite  as  decisive.  On  either  sup- 
position, therefore,  the  silent  rejection  of  the  fourth  command- 
ment at  once  suspends  its  authority;  unless  J.  N.  B.  is  pre- 
pared to  show  that  the  Greeks  and  Romans  themselves  had  a 
weekly  Sabbath — apart  from  this  repudiated  law  of  Sinai.  I 
hardly  suppose  that  this  will  be  attempted. 

When  the  church  at  Antioch  received  the  circular  epistle 
announcing  the  decision,  we  learn  that  "  they  rejoiced  for  the 
consolation."  Contemplating  the  relief  thus  accorded  by  this 
gospel  sabbatism  from  Mosaic  bondage,  how  appropriate  be- 
comes the   prophet's  announcement  concerning  the  root  of 

■^  "If  the  Apostles  had  intended  to  decx'ee  anything  against  homi- 
cide in  this  canon,  they  would  doubtless  have  appointed  the  whole 
Desalogiie  to  be  observed  by  the  Gentile  converts."  Spencer.  {De 
Legibus  Hebrceor.  Ritual,  lib.  ii.  cap.  xxvi.  sect.  4.) 


MR.  Taylor's  first  reply.  33 

The  Sabbath  as  clearly  abrogated  as  circumcision. 

Jesse,  "To  it  shall  the  G-en  tiles  seek;  and  his  rest  shall  be 
glorious  !"     (Isai.  xi.  10;  2  Cor.  iii.  11.) 

It  is  true  that  the  church  at  Jerusalem  continued  to  observe 
the  Sabbath,  long  after  this  repeal — as  it  did  indeed  the  whole 
Mosaic  code — the  first  fifteen  Bishops  of  that  church  being  all 
circumcised  Jews ;  but  the  repeal  appears  to  have  been  ad- 
dressed particularly  "unto  the  brethren  which  are  of  the  Gen- 
tiles'' (^Acts  XV.  23),  and  not  to  the  Jews;  and  accordingly 
we  learn  from  history  that  these  Gentile  Christians  Tcejjt  no 
Sabhath.  They  did  meet  together  early  on  Sunday  "  to  break 
bread"  in  commemoration  of  the  "resurrection  morn"  (appa- 
rently occupying  the  remainder  of  the  day  with  their  usual 
employments),  but  so  far  was  this  day  from  being  regarded  as 
a  Sabbath,  that  the  Jewish  Christians,  while  adopting  the  same 
practice,  still  rigidly  observed  the  seventh  day  in  literal  obe- 
dience to  the  fourth  commandment. 

The  firm  conclusion,  then,  at  which  we  arrive,  is  this :  that 
the  abrogation  of  the  SabbHh  is  as  certainly  and  as  distinctly 
announced  by  this  Jerusalem  council,  as  is  the  abrogation  of 
circumcision.  There  is  no  suggestion  that  can  be  ofiered  to 
preserve  its  vitality  that  will  not  equally  apply  to  the  latter. 
Was  the  one  symbolical  ?  so  was  the  other ;  was  the  one  cere- 
monial ?  so  was  the  other ;  was  the  one  unknown  to  the  Greeks  ? 
so  was  the  other  ;*  was  the  one  excluded  by  silent  neglect  ?  so 
was  the  other;  was  the  one  distinctively  referred  to  in  the 
subsequent  Epistles  ?  so  was  the  other ;  is  the  one  abolished  ? 

■^  Circumcision,  indeed  (although  the  great  seal  of  the  Abrahamic 
covenant),  was  even  less  distinctive  of  the  Israelite  than  was  the  Sab- 
batic institution!  Theodoketus,  one  of  the  Christian  "Fathers,"  liaS 
well  remarked  :  "No  other  nation  beside  the  Jews  ever  observed  the 
Sabbatic  rest :  neither  did  circumcisiori  itself  so  perfectly  distinguish 
them  from  other  nations  as  this  Sabbath ;  for  the  Idumseans  (who 
are  descended  from  Esau),  as  well  as  the  Ishmaelites,  and  even  the 
Egyptians,  also  had  circumcision;  but  the  Jewish  nation  alone  had 
the  institution  of  the  Sabbath."  (Comment,  in  Ezek.  xx.) 


84  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Warburton  ;  and  Bunyan.  Epistle  to  the  Hebreivs  Anti-Sabbatarian, 

SO  is  the  other  !  ^'  No  one  ever  yet  mistook  circumcision  for  a 
natural  duty,"  remarks  Bishop  Warburton,  "while  it  has 
been  esteemed  a  kind  of  impiety  to  deny  the  Sabbath  to  be  of 
that  number !"   (^Div.  Leyat.  B.  iv.  sec.  6,  note.') 

To  adopt  the  language  of  John  Bunyan,  I  would  ask, 
"What  can  be  more  plain,  these  things  thus  standing  in  the 
Testament  of  God,  than  that  the  seventh-day  Sabbaths,  as 
such,  were  given  to  Israel — to  Israel  only  :  and  that  the  Gren- 
tiles  as  such  were  not  concerned  therein  V  (^Essay  on  the  Sab- 
hath,  quest,  iii.)  He  was  fully  warranted  in  the  assertion, 
"  that  the  old  seventh-day  Sabbath  is  abolished  and  done  aivayy 
and  that  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  churches  of  the  Gen- 
tiles.'^ (Ibid,  quest,  iv.) 

VI.  In  regard  to  the  Sixth  and  last  Proposition,  that  the 
Epistles  uniformly  regard  the  Sabbath  as  a  provisional  type, 
fulfilled  and  superseded  by  the  gospel  dispensation,  my  friend 
again  laconically  says,  "  This  I  deny,  and  challenge  him  to 
the  proof.  It  certainly  is  not  fothid  in  the  epistle  to  the  He- 
brews.''  Let  us  see  how  far  this  interesting  treatise  confirms, 
or  tends  to  illustrate  our  proposition.  The  deductions  of  its 
author  are  oftentimes  apparently  remote,  and  (as  Peter  has 
observed,  2  Upist.  iii.  16)  even  their  scope  occasionally  ob- 
scure ;  still,  accepting  his  doctrines,  we  must,  to  the  best  of 
our  ability,  endeavor  to  discover  his  design. 

What  is  the  "rest"  of  God,  referred  to  by  the  Psalmist 
(xcv.  11),  and  by  whom  should  it  be  enjoyed,  appear  to  have 
been  the  questions  suggested  to  the  apostle's  mind  by  the  quo- 
tation he  had  introduced,  to  warn  the  Hebrews  against  "  un- 
belief" (chap,  iii.)  And  in  this  connection,  since  the  ancient 
Israelites  who  believed  not  "  could  not  enter  in  because  of 
unbelief,"  he  contends  that,  by  application  to  the  new  dispen- 
sation, only  those  "  which  have  believed,  do  enter  into  rest" 
(iv.  3),  that  is,  that  the  promised  rest  could  only  be  referred 
to — and  enjoyed  by — the  faithful  Christian.  And  he  endea- 
vors to  establish  this  by  the  consideration,  first,  that  while  the 


MR.  Taylor's  first  reply.  35 

Tlie  Christian's  "  rest"  not  Sabbatic.  Exposition  of  Clarke:  and  Gill. 

Creator's  rest — reaching  back  even  to  the  "  foundation  of  the 
world" — gave  sanction  to  a  Sabbath  which  had  been  long  arid 
fully  enjoyed  by  the  Israelites,  the  text  yet  declared,  ''They 
shall  not  enter  into  my  rest;"  proving  that  this  could  not 
mean  the  Sahhath  rest  {y.  4,  5,  6);  and  secondli/y  that,  while 
''  Joshua  had  given  them  rest"  in  Canaan,  long  before  the 
time  of  David,  the  expression  "  '  To-day' — after  so  long  a 
time,"  equally  proved  (and  for  the  same  reason)  that  the 
Psalmist  could  not  refer  to  the  Canaan  rest :  "  for  if  Joshua 
had  then  given  this  rest,  he  would  not  afterward  have  spoken 
of  another  day"  of  rest,  into  which  some  should  "  not  enter.'^ 
(7,  8.)^ 

Having  thus  clearly  excluded  both  the  repose  of  Canaan 
and  that  of  the  Sabbath  from  the  contemplation  of  the  pas- 
sage quoted,  he  establishes  his  conclusion,  "  There  remaineth, 
therefore,  a  rest  to  the  people  of  GocV  (v.  9),  to  those  who 
'^  are  made  partakers  of  Christ,"  as  the  only  hypothesis  left, 
to  give  significance  to  the  text.  "  We,  which  have  be- 
lieved, do  enter  into  rest  ;'^  and  with  regard  to  its  character, 
"  he  that  is  entered  into  his  rest,  he  also  hath  ceased /rowi  his 
own  works,  as  God  did  from  his."  (y.  10.)  This  spiritual 
''  sabbatism  to  the  people  of  God"  is  thus  as  complete  in  its 
application,  and  as  perfect  in  its  fruition,  as  was  the  carnal 
sabbatism  of  the  Israelites.  The  believer,  says  Dr.  Clarke, 
"no  longer  depends  on  the  observance  of  Mosaic  rites  and 
ceremonies  for  his  justification  and  final  happiness.  He  rests 
from  all  these  works  of  the  Jaw,  as  fully  as  God  has  rested  from 
his  works  of  creation."  {Comment,  in  loco.)  Dr.  GlLL  very 
unnecessarily  and  unsatisfactorily  refers  this  verse  (10)  to 
Christ,  instead  of  to  his  followers;  though,  on  the  preceding 
verse,  he  very  forcibly  remarks  :  "  The  rest  which  remains  for 
them  is  not  a  new  Sahhath  day,  but  a  sabbatism ;  and  this 
does  not  so  much  design  eternal  rest  in  heaven  ....  but 
rather  the  spiritual  rest  believers  have  in  Christ,  under  the 
Gospel  dispensation,  which  they  now  enter  into,  and  of  which 


36  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  heavenly  rest  not  referred  to.  The  two  types. 

the  apostle  had  been  treating ;  and  as  for  the  word  '  re- 
maineth/  this  does  not  denote  the  futurity  of  it,  but  the 
apostle's  inference  or  consequence  from  what  he  had  said;  and 
the  sense  is,  it  remains,  therefore,  and  is  a  certain  fact,  a  clear 
consequence  from  what  has  been  observed,  that  there  is  an- 
other rest  distinct  from  God's  rest  on  the  seventh  day,  and 
from  the  rest  in  the  land  of  Canaan  3  which  were  both  typical 
ones  of  the  present  rest  the  saints  now  enjoy."  (^Comment,  in 
loco.^ 

The  view  which  would  refer  this  sabbatism  to  the  rest  be- 
yond the  grave  finds  no  support  from  the  context.  The 
whole  subject  of  this  dissertation  is  the  Levitical  symbolism 
of  the  gospel;  without  the  slightest  reference  to  a  future 
life.  ^^  Unbelief" — the  great  stumbling-block  of  the  Hebrews 
— is  characterized  as  the  chief  obstacle  to  their  enjoyment  of 
the  promised  repose ;  which  (it  would  appear)  is  complete  in 
proportion  to  faith.  ^'  Let  us  therefore  fear,  lest  a  promise 
being  left  us  of  entering  into  his  rest,  any  of  you  should  seem 
to  come  short  of  it,"  "  Let  us  labor  therefore  to  enter  into 
that  rest,  lest  any  man  fall  after  the  same  example  of  unbe- 
lief." (v.  11.)  "For  we  which  have  believed,  do  enter  into 
rest ;" — evidently  not  in  a  future  sense.  "  Come  unto  me  all 
ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest." 
{Matt.  xi.  28.) 

The  two  different  rests  referred  to  above  (in  verses  4  and 
8)  appear  to  have  prefigured — each  its  peculiar  antitype  ;  and 
while  the  spiritualizing  Jews  regarded  Canaan  (to  possess 
which  they  passed  the  Jordan — Josh.  i.  11)  as  emblematic  of 
the  heavenly  repose  after  death  (Joh  iii.  17 ;  Rev.  xiv.  13), 
they  looked  upon  the  more  transient  Sabbath  day  as  a  shadow 
of  the  temporal  repose  of  their  nation  under  their  Messiah's 
empire.*     Hence,  the  early  and  wide-spread  sentiment  of  a 

-X-  "The  Jews,"  says  Burnet,  "have  a  remarkable  prophecy,  which 
expresseth  both  the  whole  and  the  parts  of  the  world's  duration.    The 


MR.  Taylor's  first  reply.  37 

The  celestial  Canaan :  and  the  Millennial  Sabbath. 

millennial  Sabbath,  that  should  succeed  and  terminate  six  thou- 
sand years  of  worldly  toil.* 

The  intimations,  then,  that  we  receive  from  this  somewhat 
abstract  treatise  are,  first,  that  there  is  a  Sabbatism  for 
Christians ;  and,  secondly,  that  this  Sabbatism  is  something 
very  widely  different  from  the  keeping  of  a  holy  dai/.  A 
strong  presumption  is  thus  afforded  that  the  Jewish  Sabbath 
was  itself,  in  fact,  the  ^'provisional  type''  of  this  new  rest 
reserved   for   believers ;   that,  as  literally  it   commemorated 

world,  they  say,  will  stand  six  thousand  years.  .  .  .  This  prophecy  they 
derive  from  Elias."  (Sacred  Theory,  ^c.  B.  iii.  chap.  5.)  "And  so  our 
Rabbins  of  blessed  memory  have  said  in  their  commentaries  on  *  God 
blessed  the  seventh  day' — the  Holy  One  blessed  the  world  to  come, 
which  beginneth  in  the  seventh  thousand  of  years."  [Bereschith  Rabba.) 

*  We  find  this  idea  of  a  millennial  Sabbath  very  common  among  the 
Christian  ''  Fathers."  In  an  epistle  of  undoubted  antiquity  (though 
generally  considered  as  falsely  ascribed  to  Barnabas,  the  companion 
of  Paul),  the  meaning  of  the  six  days'  creation  is  said  to  be,  ''that  in 
six  thousand  years  the  Lord  will  bring  all  things  to  an  end,"  and  "  that, 
when  his  Son  shall  come  and  abolish  the  season  of  the  Wicked  One — 
then  he  shall  gloriously  rest  in  that  seventh  day."  (  Wake's  Translation^ 
chap,  xiii.) 

"  The  assurance  of  such  a  Millennium  was  carefully  inculcated  by 
a  succession  of  Fathers,  from  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenteus,  who  con- 
versed with  the  immediate  disciples  of  the  apostles,  down  to  I^tan- 
tius,  who  was  preceptor  to  the  son  of  Constantine."  Gibbon.  [De- 
cline and  Fall,  chap,  xv.) 

Says  this  last-named  Father,  "  Since  in  six  days  all  the  works  of 
God  were  finished — so,  during  six  ages  (that  is,  for  six  millenniums), 
it  is  necessary  for  the  world  to  remain  in  the  present  state.  For  the 
great  Day  of  God  is  completed  by  the  circuit  of  a  thousand  years,  as 
the  prophet  indicates  who  says,  '  Before  thy  eyes,  0  Lord,  a  thousand 
years  are  as  one  day.'  .  .  .  And  since  God  rested  on  the  seventh  day 
from  his  finished  work,  and  blessed  it,  it  is  necessary  that  at  the  end 
of  the  six  thousandth  year,  all  evil  should  be  abolished  from  the 
earth,  and  justice  should  reign  for  a  thousand  years;  and  that  there 
should  be  anxmiversal  tranquillity  and  rest  from  labors."  Lactantius. 
(JDivin.  Instil.  Lib.  vii.  sect.  14.) 

4 


88  ABROGATION  OP  THE  SABBATH. 

Justin  Martyr.  Erasmus.  Calvin's  comment.  Whatelt's  summary. 

Israel's  repose  from  the  bondage  of  Egypt  {Deut.  v.  15),  so 
spiritually  it  foreshadowed  Israel's  repose  from  the  bondage 
of  Sinai  (^Gal.  v.  1).  How  far  this  presumption  is  weakened, 
or  illustrated,  by  collateral  Scripture  testimonies  will  presently 
appear. 

Says  Justin  the  Martyr,  in  his  reply  to  the  charge  of  the 
Jew  Trypho,  that  the  Christians  had  abolished  the  Sabbath — 
'^  Instead  of  wasting  a  day  in  idleness  and  calling  it  religion, 
this  new  law  will  have  you  keep  a  perpetual  Sabbath."  {Dia- 
log.  P.  i.) 

The  learned  Erasmus  in  the  same  spirit  remarks  that  "they 
that  stick  unto  the  Son  of  man  (who  is  Lord  of  the  whole  law, 
and  teacheth  how  all  things  which  were  figured  by  the  cor- 
poral ^  shadows'  ought  to  be  observed  after  a  spiritual  sense 
and  meaning),  are  free,  and  clean  discharged  in  conscience 
from  any  longer  observing  of  such  Jewish  ceremonies." 
(^Paraphrase  on  Mark  ii.) 

Calvin,  in  his  celebrated  "  Institutes,"  commenting  on  the 
fourth  commandment,  holds  the   following   language :  "  He 

[Christ]  is  the  true /«//?/mew?;  of  the  Sabbath 

This  is  kept,  not  by  one  clay,  but  by  the  whole  course  of  our 
life,  till,  being  wholly  dead  to  ourselves,  we  be  filled  with  the 
life  of  God.  Far  away  from  Christians,  therefore,  should  be 
the  superstitious  observance  of  days.  .  .  .  Let  us  sum 
up  the  whole  in  the  following  manner :  as  the  truth  was  deli- 
vered to  the  Jews  under  a  figure,  so  it  is  given  to  us  without 
any  shadow;  first,  in  order  that  during  our  whole  life  we 
should  meditate  on  a  perpetual  rest  from  our  own  works,"  &c. 
{Instit.  B.  II.  chap.  viii.  sees.  31,  32.) 

"Numerous  early  Christian  Fathers"  (says  Archbishop 
Whately),  "in  their  commentaries  on  the  Decalogue,  de- 
scribe the  Jewish  Sabbath  as  corresponding,  in  the  analogous 
scheme  of  Christianity,  not  so  much  to  the  Lord's  day  as  to 
the  whole  life  of  the  Christian,  to  his  abstinence  from  all 
works  that  may  draw  off  his  afi'ections  from  God,  and  to  his 


MR.  Taylor's  first  reply.  39 

Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Colossians.  Distinguished  expositors  concurrent. 

complete  dedication  of  himself  to  his  service.  See  Athanasius, 
Horn,  de  Sab.  ; — Hieronymus,  in  Decalog.  ; — Origen,  Tract. 
19  in  3Iaff.  ; — Chrjsostom,  Horn.  39  in  Matt.  xii. ; — Justin 
Martyr,  Dial.  c.  Trypli.  ; — Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Strom. 
lib.  iv. ; — and  Augustine,  passim  ; — all  of  whom  hold  this 
language.  I  refer,  however,"  continues  Whately,  "  to  these 
and  other  authorities,  not  as  guides  to  regulate  our  faith  and 
practice,  for  I  amtaught  to  'call  no  man  Master  upon  earth;' 
but  merely  to  show  that  the  novelty  which  has  been  attributed 
to  my  views  lies,  in  fact,  on  the  other  side."  (^Essay  v.  Note 
A.  On  the  Sahhath.) 

But  we  must  return  to  Paul.  ''  Let  no  man  judge  you/' 
says  he  to  the  Colossians  (ii.  16),  '^  in  respect  of  an  holy  day 
.  .  .  .  or  of  the  Sabbath-days ;  which  are  a  shadow  of 
things  to  come ;  but  the  body  is  of  Christ."  At  first  sight, 
this  really  looks  as  if  the  apostle  intended  to  teach  us  that 
the  Sabbath  was  a  "  provisional  type,  fulfilled  and  superseded 
by  the  Gospel  dispensation  !"  But  my  friend  J.  N.  B.  says 
he  did  not  '^  refer  to  the  Sabbath  of  the  Decalogue,  but  only 
to  the  ceremonial  fasts  and  festivals  of  the  Jews."  How  un- 
fortunate for  my  hypothesis  !  It  is  some  encouragement,  how- 
ever, to  find  that  John  Calvin  expressly  quotes  this  text, 
in  his  exposition  of  the  fourth  commandment,  and  approves  its 
literal  application.  •  '^  Therefore  the  apostle  says,  in  another 
place,  that  the  Sabbath  was  a  shadow  of  something  future,  but 
the  body  was  in  Christ  that  is,  the  real  substance  of  the  truth, 
as  he  has  there  well  unfolded."  (^Calvin's  Institutes,  B.  ii.  ch. 
8.)  I  have  the  satisfaction  also  of  discovering  that  Martin 
Luther,  John  Milton,  Richard  Baxter,  Isaac  Bar- 
row, John  Bunyan,  and  a  few  other  minds  of  the  same 
stamp,  all  apply  this  text  to  the  fourth  commandment.  Jeremy 
Taylor  very  concisely  remarks  :  ''  That  we  are  free  from  the 
observation  of  the  Sabbath,  St.  Paul  expressly  affirms  in  Co- 
lossians." {Ductor  Duhitant.  B.  ii.  ch.  2,  rule  vi.  52.)  Arch, 
deacon  Paley,  an  able  Biblical  critic,  and  certainly  a  close 


40  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Assertion,  inconclusive.        A  challenge.        Paul  to  the  Romans: — all  days  alike. 

student  of  Paul's  writings,  infers  from  this  passage  that  '^  St. 
Paul  evidently  appears  to  have  considered  the  Sabbath  as  part 
of  the  Jewish  ritual,  and  not  obligatory  upon  Christians.'' 
i^Mor.  Phil  B.  V.  ch.  7.) 

I  can  hardly  permit  J.  N.  B.,  therefore,  to  dislodge  me  thus 
summarily ;  but  before  surrendering  my  castle  at  summons,  I 
require  him  to  show  by  a  single  hint  "  from  the  context," — 
by  a  single  syllable  from  the  New  Testament — how  he  can  ex- 
clude the  seventh  day  Sabbath  from  "  the  Sabbath-days  which 
are  a  shadow."  But  again;  as  is  generally  the  case  with 
theories  founded  in  error,  my  friend  has  wholly  overlooked 
another  point.  After  he  has  given  me,  therefore,  some  ground 
more  substantial  than  assertion,  for  believing  that  this  passage 
"  does  not  refer  to  the  Sabbath  of  the  Decalogue,"  I  further 
require  him  to  show  how  Christians  can  possibly  retain  this 
Sabbath,  and  yet  not  keep  '^  an  holy  day !"  I  suppose  the 
next  step  in  the  argument  (if  I  may  be  pardoned  the  misno- 
mer) will  be  the  assurance  not  only  that  "  Sabbath  days"  do 
not  mean  Sabbath-days ;  but  that  "  an  holy  day,"  obviously 
*'from  the  context,"  imports  something  entirely  different  from 
an  holy  day !  and  perhaps  ultimately,  that  ^^  the  context"  itself 
falls  within  the  same  category.  If,  in  addition  to  these  philo- 
logical revelations,  your  correspondent  will  also  make  the  tri- 
fling discovery  of  a  Scriptural  text,  half  so  explicit — half  so 
unmistakable — on  his  side  of  either  of  our  "  Six  Propositions," 
I  promise  to  abandon  to  him  the  whole  argument  loithout  re- 


serve 


But,  fortunately,  we  have  corroborating  testimonies  to  estab- 
lish the  position  under  review :  it  is  not  dependent  on  a  single 
chain  of  evidence — however  irrefragable  that  chain  may  be. 
^^Him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith,  receive  ye,"  says  Paul  to 

the  Romans,  "  but  not  to  doubtful  disputations 

One  man  esteemeth  one  day  above  another  ]  another  esteemeth 
every  day  alike.  Let  every  man  be  fully  persuaded  in  his 
own  mind.     He   that   regardeth  the   day,  regardeth  it  unto 


MR.  Taylor's  first  reply.  41 

The  text  conclusive,  unless  "limited!"        Erasmus.        Gill.        Macknight. 

the  Lord;  and  he  that  regardeth  not  the  day,  to  the  Lord 
he  doth  not  regard  it.''  (xiv.  1,  5,  6.)  To  this  J.  N.  B. 
replies :  ^'  If  Paul's  language  in  that  chapter  be  taken  with- 
out any  limitation,  as  affirming  that  every  day  is  to  he  es- 
teemed alike  by  enlightened  Christians,  it  goes  beyond  the 
apostle's  aim,  and  strikes  equally  against  the  Christians' 
^  Lord's  day,'  as  against  the  Sabbath  of  the  Decalogue  !" 
This  is  certainly  an  original  mode  of  argument ;  and  deserves 
a  copyright !  If  our  recognized  authority  "  be  taken  without 
any  limitation,"  it  entirely  overthrows  me,  and  therefore  I 
must  limit  it ! — to  what  extent,  we  are  not  informed.  Humbly 
supposing  that  the  apostle  really  meant  pretty  much  what  he 
said,  I  am  disposed  to  accept  his  language  as  it  is. 

Erasmus  illustrates  the  text  thus :  "  For  he  that  is  weak 
and  of  unperfect  faith,  maketh  a  difference  betwixt  day  and 
day,  as  though  one  were  '  holy,'  and  the  other  not.  .  .  . 
On  the  other  side,  he  that  is  perfect  and  strong  in  his  faith, 
eonceiveth  in  days  no  such  difference,  but  rather  thinketh  all 
the  space  of  his  life  consecrate  and  hallowed  to  godly  conver- 
sation."  (^Parajphrase  on  Rom.  xiv.) 

Dr.  Gill  remarks,  concerning  this  passage,  that  it  must  be 
understood  as  including,  among  the  various  Jewish  festivals, 
'^  one  day  in  a  week,  the  seventh  day  Sabbath  ]  now  there  were 
some,"  he  adds,  "who  thought  that  the  laws  respecting  these 
days  were  still  in  force,  particularly  the  latter,  and  therefore 
esteemed  it  above  another."  (^Comment,  in  loco?) 

"  With  respect  to  days,'^  says  Macknight,  paraphrasing 
the  same  passage,  "  the  Jewish  Christian  indeed  thinketh  one 
day  more  holy  than  another  ;  the  new-moons,  for  example,  and 
Sabbaths ;  but  the  Gentile  Christian,  better  informed,  thinketh 
every  day  alike  holy,  because  the  law  of  Moses  is  not  the  law 
of  Christ's  kingdom."   (^On  the  Epistles,  Bom.  xiv.  5.) 

Whatever  vaUd  grounds  then  there  may  be  for  weekly  wor- 
ship, and  for  Sunday  commemoration,  I  sincerely  hope  they 

are  perfectly  satisfactory  to  my  friend  :  if  not,  he  deserves 

4* 


42  ABROaATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Luther.  Paul  to  the  Galatians : — Sabbath  observance  condemned. 

commiseration.  But  at  present  I  am  only  concerned  to  show, 
first,  that  this  observance  is  not  required  by  the  fourth  com- 
mandment (vide  Proposition  I.),  and  secondly,  that,  if  it  were, 
this  commandment  has  been,  in  Paul's  expressive  language 
(unconsciously  used  by  my  friend),  completely  *^  blotted 
out."  {Col  ii.  14,  16.)  If  J.  N.  B.  will  esteem  Sunday  as 
more  ''  holy''  than  any  other  day,  I  leave  him  to  escape  Paul's 
implication  of  ^'  weakness  in  the  faith,''  as  best  he  can.  To  con- 
sole him,  I  will  remind  him  of  the  opinion  of  Martin  Luther, 
as  quoted  in  Coleridge's  Tahle-Talk:  (vol.  ii.  3Ia2/  19, 1834  :) 
^'  If  anywhere  the  day  is  made  holy  for  the  mere  days  sake, 
if  anywhere  any  one  sets  up  its  observance  upon  a  Jeivish 
foundation,  then  I  order  you  to  work  on  it,  to  ride  on  it,  to 
dance  on  it,  to  do  anything  that  shall  reprove  this  encroachment 
on  the  Christian  spirit  and  liberty." 

"  0,  foolish  Galatians,"  says  the  apostle  once  more,  (iii.  1,) 
*'  who  hath  bewitched  you,  that  ye  should  not  obey  the  truth  ?" 
"  How  turn  ye  again  to  the  weak  and  beggarly  elements, 
whereunto  ye  desire  again  to  be  in  bondage  ?  Ye  observe 
daysV  (Gal.  iv.  9,  10.)  '^Sabbaths:"  says  Grotius.  (Anno- 
tations in  loco.')  ^' These  days,"  says  a  note  in  Valpy's  Greek 
Test.,  ''are  the  Sabbaths."  "This  expression,"  says  Bloom- 
field's  Greek  ^es^.,  "refers  to  the  Sabbath."  "By  days," 
says  Macknight,  "  the  apostle  means  the  weekly  Sabbaths." 
(Commentary  in  loco.')  Dr.  Clarke  paraphrases  it:  "Ye 
superstitiously  regard  the  Sabbaths."  (in  loco.)  And  Dr. 
Gill  says:  "By  ^clays'  are  meant  their  seventh  day  Sab- 
baths ;  for  since  they  are  distinguished  from  '  months'  and 
'years,'  they  must  mean  such  days  as  returned  weekly ;  and 
what  else  can  they  be  but  their  weekly  Sabbaths  ?"  (Com.  in 
loco.) 

If  my  friend  J.  N.  B.  thinks  these  "  days,"  so  warmly  con- 
demned by  the  apostle,  do  not  refer  to  the  Sabbath  of  the 
fourth  commandment,  I  shall  be  very  happy  to  learn  the 
grounds  on  which  such  an  opinion  is  based.     Mespwhile,  I 


MR.  Taylor's  first  reply.  43 

The  Sabbath  uniformly  regarded  as  a  shadow  in  the  Epistles. 

must  avow  that  I  have  seen  nothing  calculated  to  *'  abate  the 
tone  of  confidence"  with  which  I  reiterate  the  unimpeached 
conclusion,  that  while  the  apostolic  council  at  Jerusalem  clearly 
rejected  the  Sabbath  from  the  "  things  necessary"  for  Gentile 
Christian  observance,  the  Epistles  uniformly  regard  the  in- 
stitution "  as  a  provisional  type,  fulfilled  and  superseded  by 
the  gospel  dispensation  :  the  *res^  which  remaineth  to  the  peo- 
ple of  God'  being  not  that  of  'the  seventh  day^^  but  that  into 
which  they  '  who  have  believed  do  enter,'  when  they  '  have 
ceased  from  their  own  works.'  "  If  in  a  solitary  instance  these 
Epistles  regard  the  Sabbath  otliericise  than  as  "  a  shadow,"  I 
have  yet  to  read  it,  and  I  shall  be  under  deep  obligations  to 
him  who  shall  thus  enlighten  me. 

Two  points  of  my  friend's  review,  that  I  particularly  desired 
to  notice,  yet  remain;  the  "obligation"  of  Mosaic  law,  and 
the  "Antinomianism"  of  its  rejection  :  but  I  have  already  so 
encroached  upon  your  courtesy,  Messrs.  Editors,  and,  I  fear, 
upon  the  patience  of  your  readers,  that  I  must  for  the  pre- 
sent neglect  them. 

In  conclusion,  I  would  ask  your  correspondent  J.  N.  B. 
one  serious  question  :  Does  it  not  painfully  impress  him  as  a 
most  suspicious  circumstance  for  the  doctrine  he  advocates — as 
a  circumstance  well  qualified — not  to  ''abate" — but  to  destroy 
his  confidence  in  its  truth,  that,  while  the  Anti-sabbatarian  calm- 
ly reposes  on  the  perspicuous  and  repeated  declarations  of  Scrip- 
ture, he  himself  is  driven  to  the  merest  expedients  in  futile 
efi'orts  to  evade  or  to  extenuate  their  significance,  and  finds  no 
single  text  to  counteract  their  force — no  single  intimation 
from  the  whole  New  Testament,  to  sustain  his  Sabbath  obliga- 
tion ? 

W.  B.  T. 


THE  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH, 


REPLY  TO  ''W.  B.  T." 


PART  I. 

*'  Whosoever,  therefore,  shall  break  one  of  these  least  commandments, 
and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven ;  but  whosoever  shall  do  and  teach  them,  the  same  shall  be 
called  great  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven." — Matthew  v.  19. 


Messrs.  Editors  : — 

I  HAVE  read  with  interest,  not  unmixed  with  melan- 
choly, the  ingenious  defence  by  W.  B.  T.  of  the  ^'Six  Anti- 
sabbatarian  Propositions."  It  is  written  with  vivacity  and 
force,  is  courteous  in  tone,  and  its  argument  is  lawyer-like  in 
subtlety,  brilliancy,  and  strength. 

If  (as  he  claims  by  the  text  he  has  prefixed  as  a  motto) 
he  regards  himself  as  defending  Christian  liherty,  I  honor  his 
motives  ]  but  at  the  same  time  must  lament  that  he  entertains 
such  views  of  the  Sabbath  as  to  suppose  it  was  ever  to  pious  men 
a  burden  and  a  bondage.  The  good  of  old  were  taught  of  Grod  to 
^'  call  the  Sabbath  a  delighf."  A  very  different  class  of  men 
were  they  who  said,  "  What  a  weariness  is  it  !'^  "  When  will 
the  Sabbath  be  gone  ?'^ 

Should  not  this  single  Scriptural  contrast  suggest  to  his 
mind  that,  after  all,  his  views  mai/  be  wrong  ?  And  if  wrong, 
then  dangerous  ?  Is  the  liberty  which  Christ  has  come  to  give 
us,  a  liberty /rom,  or  a  liberty  to,  holy  delight  ?  Is  it  not  the 
uniform  effect  of  a  spiritual  change  in  true  conversion  (I  put 


MR.  brown's  second  REPLY.  45 

The  Sabbath  no  "  burden ;"  but  a  "  delight."  Evil  tendencies. 

it  to  the  observation  and  Christian  experience  of  every  one)  to 
endear  to  us  the  day  of  religious  rest?  Would  my  brother 
wish  it  otherwise  ? 

A  word  as  to  my  stand-point  and  aim  in  this  discussion 
seems  necessary.  Let  no  man  think  me  the  advocate  of  Jew- 
ish prejudice,  or  religious  intolerance.  All  my  principles  for- 
bid it.  I  honor  no  class  of  men  more  highly  than  the  apostles 
and  champions  of  religious  liberty.  In  this  respect  I  belong 
to  the  school  of  Roger  Williams,  or  rather/let  me  say,  to  the 
glory  of  our  common  Master,  to  the  school  of  Christ.  Of  Him 
I  have  learned  to  "  call  no  man  master  on  earth,'^  and  to  for- 
bid no  man  to  do  good,  because  he  follows  not  with  me.  I  go 
all  length  with  my  brother  in  his  abhorrence  of  bigotry.  I 
say  with  Paul,  that  great  apostle  of  Christian  liberty :  ''  Let 
us  not,  therefore,  judge  one  another  any  more  ;  but  judge  this 
rather,  that  no  man  put  a  sfumhiing-block,  or  an  occasion  to 
fall  in  Jiis  brother's  wayT  {Roim.  xiv.  13.)  I  trust  he  will 
believe  me  when  I  say  that,  while  I  entirely  acquit  him  of  all 
such  intention^  I  could  not  suppress  the  apprehension  that  such 
an  ill  effect^  as  is  here  deprecated,  might  follow  from  the  con- 
fident tone  and  natural  tendency  of  the  '^  Six  Propositions," 
against  the  divine  authority  of  the  Sabbath. 

For  this  reason  I  wrote  at  first,  and  for  this  reason  I  now 
resume  the  pen.  Had  W.  B.  T.,  in  this  reply,  convinced  me 
of  any  radical  error  in  my  position,  or  fundamental  truth  in 
his  own,  I  should  have  acknowledged  it  as  cheerfully  as  I 
shall  any  incidental  defect  he  has  pointed  out  in  my  statements 
or  reasoning.  I  hope,  notwithstanding  some  strong  expres- 
sions on  his  part,  to  find  him  at  least  equally  open  to  convic- 
tion. 

I  must  repeat  my  regret  that  I  have  so  little  leisure  to  give 
to  a  discussion  so  seasonable,  so  practical,  and  in  its  relations 
to  the  Law  and  the  Gospel  so  fundamental  and  all-pervading. 
I  almost  envy  my  friend,  whose  opening  words  on  occupying 
''  a  small  space"  by  '^  a  few  remarks,"  when  compared  with 


46  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  real  question  at  issue.  Proof  necessary  on  either  side. 

the  space  actually  filled  by  his  defence,  suggests  to  me  the 
idea  of  an  unlimited  affluence  of  time.  Limited  as  my  own 
time  is,  I  have  felt  obliged  to  enter  thus  fully  into  the  preli- 
minary explanations  required  by  the  motto  he  has  chosen,  lest 
any  should  misjudge  my  stand-point.  The  question  is  not 
whether  we  shall  ^^  stand  fast  in  the  liberty'^  of  the  Grospel ; 
this  I  mean  to  do  as  well  as  he.  The  question  between  us 
really  is,  Has  Christ,  who  has  made  us  free  from  the  obligation 
of  the  Jewish  ritual,  made  us  free  from  any  commandment  of 
the  Decalogue  ?  In  other  words.  Has  Christ  annulled  the 
Sabbath  ?     This  W.  B.  T.  affirms,  and  I  deny. 

I.  I  now  come  to  the  First  Proposition  ;  that  ^'  There  is 
but  one  Bible  Sabbath,  and  that,  the  Saturday  Sabbath.^'  W. 
B.  T.,  in  his  defence,  has  ingeniously  dropped  the  last  clause  of 
this  complex  proposition,  though  it  is  the  only  one  I  have 
ever  denied.  I  willingly  concede  that  the  Sabbath  under  all 
dispensations  is  substantially  one,  with  only  circumstantial 
differences  suiting  each  dispensation.  But  this  is  not  the 
meaning  of  W.  B.  T.  He  contends  that  there  is  but  one 
Bible  Sabbath,  and  that  one,  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  in  all  its  cir- 
cumstances and  details ;  in  a  word,  that  the  Law  of  the  Sabbath 
begins  and  ends  with  that  nation  only.  This  is  the  real 
meaning  of  the  original  proposition.  Here  it  is  that  I  take 
issue  with  it,  and  with  him. 

W.  B.  T.  says,  very  truly,  that  no  one  can  assail  it  by  "ven- 
turing to  affirm.''  I  give  him  all  credit  for  this  logical  dis- 
covery. But  I  beg  leave  to  remind  him  that  neither  can  it  be 
sustained  by  "venturing  to  affirm"  the  original  proposition. 
I  admit  the  justice  of  his  demand  on  my  jmrt  for  "chapter 
and  verse"  touching  what  I  propose  to  prove ;  and  shall  there- 
fore hold  him  to  the  same. 

When  T  said  that  the  Decalogue  knows  nothing  of  Saturday, 
and  that  from  the  Decalogue  alone  no  one  could  determine  the 
day  of  the  week,  I  did  not  mean  to  deny  (as  my  reference  to 
Exodus  xvi.  shows)  that  it  could  be  otherwise  ascertained ;  and 


MR.  brown's  second  REPLY.  47 

A  day  Jixed  by  miracle,  may  be  changed  by  miracle.  Sabbath  in  Eden. 

I  fully  concur  with  my  friend  that,  "  if  once  ascertained,  it  be- 
comes the  exclusive  object  of  the  law's  consideration,  and  en- 
grosses its  entire  authority."  {p.  21.)  But  I  must  at  the  same 
time  remind  him  that  this  very  mode  of  fixing  the  particular 
day  of  the  week  by  miracle  is  a  circumstance  applicable  alike 
to  any  change  of  dispensation.  He  has  spent  much  labor  in 
defending  what  I  never  denied,  that /or  the  Jews,  it  was  fix:ed 
to  the  last  day  of  our  week.  Granted.  But  then  it  was  not 
fixed  by  the  Decalogue ;  therefore  the  whole  authority  of  the 
Sabbath  enjoined  in  the  Decalogue  may,  for  sufficient  reasons, 
by  the  "Lord  of  the  Sabbath'^  be  transferred  to  the  Jirst  day 
of  our  week.  This  is  the  very  thing  for  which  I  have  contend- 
ed. And  if  by  sufficient  evidence  "  this  is  once  ascertained,'^ 
then  the  Jirst  day  (to  use  his  own  words)  "becomes  the  ex- 
clusive object  of  the  law's  consideration,  and  engrosses  its  en- 
tire authority." 

From  this  point  I  might  proceed  at  once  to  the  proof  from 
the  Scriptures,  that  such  a  change  has  actually  been  made. 
But  it  will  clear  the  ground  under  this  first  head,  to  notice 
what  W.  B.  T.  has  said  of  the  Origin  of  the  Sabbath.  He 
denies  its  existence  in  Eden,  and  regrets  that  I,  in  affirming  it, 
have  made  "so  important  an  addition  to  the  testimony  of 
Scripture !"  (p.  22.)  I  had  referred  to  Gen.  ii.  in  proof;  on 
which  he  remarks  that  "to  assume  that  the  declaration  in  Gen. 
ii.  3,  '  God  blessed  the  seventh  day  and  sanctified  it,'  means 
that  man  ''  sanctified  it,'  requires  rather  too  great  an  exercise 
of  ^  fancy'  for  a  sober  logician."  (p.  22.)  I  answer,  that  the 
meaning  of  that  verse  is  not  the  proper  work  of  the  logician, 
but  of  the  interpreter  ;  determining  the  true  sense,  by  the 
usage  of  words,  context,  scope,  and  other  circumstances.  Truly 
this  is  no  business  for  "fancy,"  but  for  sober  judgment. 
Does  then  my  friend  soberly  think  these  words  mean  that 
God  set  apart  the  seventh  day  and  blessed  it,  for  himself  to 
observe,  and  not  man  ?  Of  all  "  fancies,"  this  seems  to  me 
the  most  singular.     I  had  almost  said,  the  most  ludicrous.     If 


48  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

"  Blessed"  for  man:  and  "  sanctified"  to  religion.  A  conjectural  evasion. 

it  were  so,  why  was  the  fact,  in  which  of  course  man  has  no 
interest,  recorded  in  a  revelation  for  man  ?  But  I  must  re- 
mind my  friend  that  his  notion  is  contrary  to  the  established 
usage  of  the  words  ^'  sanctified"  and  "  blessed"  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. The  word  ^'  sanctify"  is  found  for  the  next  time  after  this 
text,  in  Exodus  xiii.  2 ;  xix.  10,  22,  23.  In  all  these  and  in 
other  places,  it  is  used  in  the  sense  of  setting  apart  to  the  spe- 
cial service  of  God,  hy  divine  authority.  If  he  can  find  any 
other  meaning  appropriate  to  Gen.  ii,  3, 1  shall  be  glad  to  see 
it.  I  know  of  no  interpreter  of  Scripture  who  agrees  with 
him.  When  it  is  therefore  said  by  the  inspired  historian, 
that  Grod  ^^  sanctified  the  seventh  day,"  I  must  understand 
him  to  say,  that  God  set  it  apart  (from  the  other  six  days  of 
labor),  to  he  religiously  employed  hy  man.  The  use  of  the 
same  words  in  the  fourth  commandment  (^Exodus  xx.  8 — 11) 
confirms  this  meaning,  beyond  all  the  power  of  scepticism. 
The  word  *'  bless,"  when  used  of  an  act  of  God,  signifies,  in 
the  Scriptures,  to  confer  hlessings  on  men  (^Gen.  i.  22;  xxx. 
27 )  xxxix.  5) ;  when  spoken  of  things,  it  signifies  to  make 
them  means  of  hap)p)iness  to  men  (^Exodus  xxiii.  25 ;  Dent. 
xxviii.  12  ;  xxxiii.  11).  I  am  really  ashamed  of  all  this  de- 
tail. But  my  friend  has  compelled  me.  And  ^'in  the 
mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  shall  every  word  be  es- 
tablished." 

The  only  plausible  evasion  of  the  force  of  this  passage  is 
that  of  Paley  and  others,  who  conjecture  that  it  may  be  a 
prolepsis,  or  anticipation  by  the  sacred  historian,  of  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Sabbath  twenty-five  hundred  years  after.  But 
to  this  conjecture,  I  answer,  1.  It  admits  my  interpretation 
of  the  words  to  be  just.  2.  It  supposes,  instead  of  a  re"^ 
corded  fact,  a  figure  of  speech,  without  any  necessity  contrary 
to  a  fundamental  law  of  interpretation.  In  other  words,  it  is 
a  pure  "  fancy,"  without  any  grammatical,  logical,  or  histori- 
cal support.  3.  It  is  a  supposition  employed  to  set  aside  a 
divine  testimony :  just  as  if  a  man,  to  get  rid  of  the  Divine 


MR.  brown's  second  REPLY.  49 

An  answer.  The  Sabbath  "  made  for  man :"  kept  by  our  first  parents. 

Law  of  Marriage,  were  to  say  that  the  words  in  verse  24th  of 
the  same  chapter  (quoted  as  divine  by  Christ,  in  3Iark  x.  5 — 9) 
were  a  mere  anticipation  by  Moses  of  a  subsequent  Jewish 
law,  and  therefore  that  the  Law  of  Marriage  was  not  binding 
"  from  the  beginning'^  of  the  race,  and  upon  the  race  at  large. 
4.  It  is  against  common  sense;  for  common  sense  says  that 
any  commemorative  institution  should  commence  at,  or  near 
the  time  of  the  event  commemorated  j  whereas,  this  supposition 
of  a  mere  i^rolej^sis  leaves  "  a  great  gulf,^'  a  vast  oblivious 
chasm  of  more  than  two  thousand  years,  between  the  Creation 
and  the  Sabbath  by  which  it  was  commemorated.  And  even 
then,  to  crown  the  climax  of  absurdity,  it  limits  that  com- 
memoration of  an  event,  in  which  the  whole  created  race  are 
equally  interested,  to  the  smallest  fraction  of  that  race ! 

From  this  legitimate  mode  of  interpretation,  I  trust  it  will 
now  appear  that  I  proceeded  upon  no  mere  "  fancy"  in  refer- 
ring the  origin  of  the  Sabbath  to  the  day  after  man's  Creation. 
So  much  is  sure.  That  it  "  was  made  for  man,"  and  not  for 
God  to  keep,  is  also  certain,  if  (in  any  case)  language  has  a 
determinate  meaning.  The  inference  of  a  "sober  logician" 
may  now  follow,  that  the  first  Sabbath  was  kept  by  Adam  and 
Eve,  in  their  state  of  unsullied  innocence;  and  that  it  was 
kept  "  the  first  day  after  their  own  creation."  This  is  all  I 
affirmed ;  and  this  I  have  proved,  I  think,  beyond  the  possi- 
bility of  reasonable  doubt. 

My  friend  makes  merry  with  the  idea  of  that  day,  as  a  day 
of  holy  rest  for  Man.  '^  In  the  name  of  wonder,"  he  asks, 
rest  "  from  what  ?"  (p.  22.)  It  had  better  become  him  had  he 
risen  upward  in  thought  to  the  sublime  repose  of  the  Creator 
over  his  finished  work,  and  remembered  that  Man  was  then  in 
perfect  communion  of  spirit  with  his  God. 

It  follows  irresistibly,  from  the  fact  thus  demonstrated,  that 
if  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  was  given  to  our  first  parents,  it 
was  given  to  all  their  posterity.     Even  Paley  admits  this. 

But  "  in  vain  shall  we  search  for  even  a  hint,"  says  my 
5 


50  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  "Week."  IIesiod;  Homer;  Callimachus.  Philo;  Josephus.  Clement;  Eurebius. 

friend,  "  that,  during  the  twenty-five  hundred  years  previous 
(to  Moses),  man  ever  did  keep,  ov  ever  was  required  to  keep 
a  Sabbath/'  (p.  22.)  This  bold,  but  unfortunate  assertion  is 
sufficiently  answered  already.  I  only  quote  it  to  remark  that 
the  division  of  time  into  "  weeks,"  or  "  seven  days,''  is  re- 
peatedly mentioned  (in  the  history  of  Noah  and  Jacob),  and 
that  we  know  of  no  other  foundation  for  such  a  division  of 
time  but  in  the  original  institution  of  the  Sabbath. 

It  is  difficult  to  account  on  any  other  principle  for  the  sort 
of  sanctity  attached  to  the  seventh  day  among  the  ancient 
heathen- nations.  The  old  Greek  poets,  Hesiod,  Homer,  and 
Callimachus  call  the  seventh  day  "  holy."  Philo  says, 
*' The  seventh  day  is  a  festival  to  every  nation."  Josephus 
says  most  explicitly,  "  No  city  of  G-reeks  or  barbarians  can  be 
found  which  does  not  acknowledge  a  seventh  day's  rest  from 
labor."  The  learned  Clement,  of  Alexandria,  a  witness  of 
the  highest  competency,  says,  "  The  Greeks,  as  well  as  the 
Hebrews,  observe  the  seventh  day  as  holy."  And,  finally,  the 
learned  Eusebius  affirms  that  '^  almost  all  the  philosophers 
and  poets  acknowledge  the  seventh  day  as  holy." 

Now,  if  we  allow  the  fact,  thus  testified  by  so  many  wit- 
nesses, Pagan,  Jewish,  and  Christian,  to  what  cause  can  this 
general  agreement  be  ascribed,  but  to  the  law  of  nature,  or  to 
the  remains  of  an  original  tradition  from  Adam  and  Noah  ? 
These  Gentiles  surely  did  not  conform  to  an  institute  of  the 
Jewish  law,  which  they  despised  and  hated. 

But  whether  the  Sabbath  was  kept  or  not,  during  that  long 
period  of  human  apostasy,  is  nothing  to  the  point.  The 
authority  of  the  institution  remained  the  same,  as  our  Lord 
says  of  marriage,  ''from  the  beginning."  The  Law  bound 
men,  in  each  case,  even  though  they  broke  it.  And  the  reck- 
oning of  the  Universal  Judge  is  sure.  (See  Jude  14,  15.) 

Having  thus  shown  by  "  chapter  and  verse,"  briefly,  but 
conclusively,  that  the  Sabbath  did  not  hegin  with  the  Jewish 
people,  I  shall  now  show,  in  the  same  manner,  that  it  did  not 


MR.  brown's  second  REPLY.  51 

A  Sabbath  predicted,  in  the  new  creation.  Proof  of  the  transfer. 

end  with  them.  I  have  before  cited  a  prediction  of  the  Mes- 
siah's resurrection  and  exaltation  {Ps.  cxviii.  16 — 26),  in 
which  the  day  of  Christian  worship  is  manifestly  made  to  cor- 
respond to,  and  celebrate  that  glorious  event.  If  so,  then  a 
Salhath  is  predicted  under  the  gospel  dispensation.  And 
whatever  belongs  to  that  dispensation,  all  admit,  is  of  universal 
and  perpetual  obligation. 

That  a  change  of  day  icould  he  demanded,  seems  evident 
from  the  nature  of  the  case.  The  original  day  was  originally 
and  appropriately  chosen  to  commemorate  the  work  of  Crea- 
tion. But  the  work  of  Christ,  being  our  Kedemption  in  its  eter- 
nal results,  must,  in  the  esteem  of  all  Christians,  be  of  far 
higher  and  sweeter  import.  The  day  that  sealed  the  certainty 
of  that  glorious  work,  and  of  the  ''  new  heavens  and  earth'' 
for  the  redeemed,  must,  therefore,  of  necessity  be  more  sacred 
and  joyful  to  believers  than  that  which  commemorated  the 
creation  of  this  visible  globe.  This  must  perish,  but  that 
must  endure  {Isai.  li.  6).  And  if,  according  to  Isaiah  (Ixv. 
17,  18),  the  glory  of  the  first  creation  is  so  to  fade  in  compa- 
rison, as  to  cease  from  the  commemoration  of  men,  then  here 
is  a  divine  prediction  of  a  change  of  the  Sabbath  from  the 
seventh,  in  the  order  to  the  first  day  of  the  week,  grounded 
upon  the  \eTj  nature  of  things,  and  the  consequent  necessity 
of  the  case. 

That  such  a  change  icas  made  in  fact — in  other  words,  that 
the  day  appropriated  to  Christian  worship,  and  the  commemo- 
ration of  the  work  of  Redemption  (especially  in  the  Eucharist, 
or  "  breaking  of  bread"),  was  the  first  day  of  the  week — that 
this  was  sanctioned  by  Christ  himself  after  his  resurrection,  as 
the  "  Lord  of  the  Sabbath" — that  it  has  the  example  of  the 
inspired  apostles  in  its  favor — that  it  was  familiarly  known  and 
acknowledged  among  all  Christians  as  the  "  Lord's  day,"  i.  e., 
the  day  by  His  authority  consecrated  to  Him — are  four  dis- 
tinct facts,  for  which  we  can  cite  both  chapter  and  verse.    (See 


52  OBLIGATION  OP  THE  SABBATH. 

Ecclesiastical  History.  Testimony  of  Iren^u3.  Sabbath-observance  blessed. 

John  XX.  16  ;  Matt,  xxviii.  9 — 11 )  Luke  xxiv.  30 — 40;  Jolin 
XX.  19,  20 ;  26—29 ;  Act?,  ii.  1—4 ;  xx.  6,  7;  xxi.  4,  5 ;  1 
Cor.  xvi.  1,  2  ;  Rev.  i.  10.) 

This  Scriptural  view  is  confirmed  in  the  clearest  manner  by 
Ecclesiastical  History.  This  is  good  testimony  as  to  the  mat- 
ter of  fact.  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  Justin  Martyr  of  Rome, 
DiONYSius  of  Corinth,  Tertullian  of  Carthage  (all  writers 
of  the  first  and  second  centuries),  agree  in  their  views  of  the 
Lord's  day,  or  the  day  of  Christ's  resurrection,  as  the  day  of 
Christian  worship.  It  is  true  they  often  distinguish  it  from 
the  "Sabbath,^'  meaning  the  Jewish  Sabbath;  but  at  other 
times,  their  language  is  as  explicit  as  we  could  desire,  as  to 
the  name  and  authority  of  the  Sabbath  being  transferred  to 
the  First  Day.  Take  for  example  these  words  of  Iren^us,  a 
writer  of  the  highest  character,  (a.  d.  178  :)  ^^  On  the  Lord's 
day  we  Christians  keep  the  jSabbath.''  Were  the  first  Chris- 
tians then  Anti-sabbatarians  ?  So  far  from  it,  a  man  who  re- 
fused to  keep  the  Sabbath  on  the  Lord's  day  would  not  have 
been  easily  recognized  by  Iren^us  as  a  Christian.  Let  W. 
B.  T.  think  of  this. 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  argument  is  this  :  Either  there 
are  now  two  Sabbaths  (which  W.  B.  T.  denies),  or  the  one 
Sabbath  of  the  Creation,  and  of  the  Decalogue  is  perpetuated ; 
is  exalted  by  a  new  association  with  the  work  of  Hedemption, 
and  for  that  reason  by  Divine  Authority  attached  to  the  Jirst 
day  of  the  week,  in  preference  to  the  seventh.  Still,  it  is  a 
'^seventh"  day  as  before;  and  as  such,  of  course,  absorbs  into 
itself  all  the  authority  of  the  original  Law,  and  all  the  bless- 
ings of  the  original  Promise.     What  want  we  more  ? 

That  the  conscientious  observance  of  the  Sabbath  is  attended 
with 'peculiar  hlessings  to  individuals,  we  have  testimony  from 
men  of  the  highest  intelligence  and  closest  observation,  of  all 
countries,  ages,  sects,  and  occupations.  This  is  not  to  be  set 
aside  by  a  sneer  at  superstition.     Superstition  will  hardly  ac- 


MR,  brown's  second  REPLY.  53 

Experience  of  Sir  Matthew  Hale.  Montalembert's  Report. 

count  for  such  a  high  testimony,  for  example,  as  that  of  Sir 
Matthew  Hale.* 

And  that  nations  prosper  most,  where  the  Sahbath  is  most 
observed  in  a  Christian  spirit  is,  I  think,  a  matter  of  observa- 
tion and  history.  Hear  what  Montalembert  (himself  a 
French  Romanist,  and  therefore  a  witness  against  the  credit 
of  his  country  and  his  church),  says  on  this  subject,  in  his 
recent  Report  on  the  Sabbath  to  the  French  Assembly :  ^' We 
still  see"  (I  quote  his  words)  "  the  two  most  powerful  and 
flourishing  natioias  in  the  world,  England  and  North  America, 

*  As  all  may  not  be  able  to  refer  to  Judge  Hale's  testimony,  I 
shall  here  quote  a  part  of  it,  only  regretting  that  I  cannot  give  it  en- 
tire. He  says:  "I  will  acquaint  you  with  a  truth,  that  above  forty 
years'  experience,  and  strict  observation  of  myself,  hath  assuredly 
taught  me.  I  have  been,  near  fifty  years,  a  man  as  much  conversant 
in  business,  and  that  of  moment  and  importance,  as  most  men ;  and  I 
will  assiu'e  you,  I  was  never  under  any  inclination  to  fanaticism,  en- 
thusiasm, or  superstition.  In  all  this  time,  I  have  most  industriously 
observed,  in  myself  and  my  concerns,  these  three  things.  First :  That 
whensoever  I  have  undertaken  any  secular  business  upon  the  Lord's 
Day  (which  was  not  absolutely  and  indispensably  necessary),  that 
business  never  prospered  or  succeeded  well  with  me.  Nay,  if  I  had  set 
myself  that  day  but  to  forecast  or  design  any  temporal  business  to  be 
done  or  performed  afterwards — though  such  forecast  were  just  and 
honest,  and  had  as  fair  a  prospect  as  could  possibly  be  expected — yet  I 
have  always  been  disappointed  in  the  effecting  of  it,  or  in  the  success 
of  it ;  so  that  it  grew  almost  proverbial  with  me,  when  any  importuned 
me  to  any  secular  business  that  day,  to  answer  them,  that  if  they  ex- 
pected it  to  succeed  amiss,  then  they  might  desire  my  undertaking  it 
upon  that  day.  And  this  was  so  certain  an  observation  to  me,  that  I 
feared  to  think  of  any  secular  business  that  day,  because  the  resolu- 
tions then  taken  would  be  unsuccessful  or  disappointed.  Secondly : 
That  always  the  more  closely  I  applied  myself  to  the  duties  of  the 
Lord's  Day,  the  more  happy  and  successful  were  my  employments  of 
the  week  following  ;  so  that  I  could,  from  the  strict  or  loose  observation 
of  this  day,  take  a  fust  prospect,  and  true  calculation  of  my  temporal  suc- 
cess in  the  ensuing  tveek.'"     See  Hale's  Meditatioxs. 

5* 


54  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

National  prosperity  dependent  on  the  Sabbath.  Truth  invincible. 

witnessing  by  their  prosperity,  to  the  price  God  himself  pays, 
even  in  temporal  things,  to  those  nations  that  remain  faithful 
to  the  first  of  his  laws.''  In  other  parts  of  his  Report  (which 
occupies  fourteen  columns  of  the  Moniteur),  this  eminent 
statesman  places  the  public  profanation  of  the  Sabbath  in  the 
first  rank  of  popular  dangers  and  faults;  declaring  it  is  like  a 
public  profession  of  Atheism,  violating  liberty,  violating  equality 
before  Grod,  and  nourishing  ignorance,  vice,  and  disorder. 

I  have  dwelt  long  on  this  point,  perhaps  too  long.  But  the 
settlement  of  this  will  greatly  aid  in  determining  other  points 
involved  in  the  remaining  Propositions.  Necessity  compels 
me  to  close  this  communication  here.  In  a  future  one,  I  hope 
more  briefly  to  dispatch  what  remains.  May  "  the  Lord  of 
the  Sabbath''  bless  my  friend ! 

J.  N.  B. 


PART   II. 

"  Whosoever  therefore  shall  break  one  of  these  least  commandments, 
and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven ;  but  whosoever  shall  do  and  teach  them,  the  same  shall  be 
called  great  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven." — Matthew  v.  19. 


I  HOPE  no  one  may  be  dismayed  by  the  length  to  which  this 
Discussion  has  been  carried,  or  discouraged  from  reading  it  for 
fear  of  its  resulting  in  the  establishment  of  error,  or  the 
perplexity  of  merely  '^  doubtful  disputations."  It  is  a  Christ- 
ian law  (doubted  by  n©  Protestant,  and  disputed  only  by  the 
Romanist),  "  prove  all  things  ]  hold  fast  that  which  is  good ; 
abstain  from  all  appearance  of  evil."  Truth  loves  examina- 
tion. Rooted  in  its  Eternal  Author,  God,  it  rears  its  majestic 
form  to  the  light  of  evidence,  and  safe  in  His  protection,  defies 
alike  the  tempestuous  sway  of  opinion,  the  lightning  shaft  of 
wit,  and  the  untempered  edge  of  sophistry.     The  clouds  of 


MR.  brown's  second  REPLY.  55 

The  "  Second  rroposition"  most  important.  Already  overthrown. 

the  tempest  may  indeed  envelop  and  obscure  it  for  a  moment; 
yet  it  soon  reappears,  stripped  haply  of  its  decayed  branches 
and  redundant  foliage,  but  intact  in  every  vital  part,  more 
perfect  in  beauty,  corroborated  in  strength,  and  rejoicing  in 
the  radiant  light  of  day.  Such  I  cannot  but  believe  will, 
through  God's  grace,  be  the  result  of  the  present  Discussion. 
If  the  Sabbath  be  no  part  of  the  Law  of  God,  let  it  perish. 
If  it  be,  one  must  indeed  be  "  weak  in  faith"  to  fear  its  over- 
throw by  any  fair  discussion,  when  he  hears  Him,  who  is 
Truth  itself,  declaring,  ^^It  is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to 
pass,  than  one  tittle  of  the  Law  to  fail." — {Luke  xvi.  17.) 

II.  The  main  strength  and  sole  hope  of  my  friend  W.  B. 
T.  lies  in  the  Second  of  the  ''  Six  Propositions"  he  defends, 
viz.,  that  "  the  Sabbath  was  strictly  a  ceremonial  and  Jewish 
institution."  All  his  other  Propositions  in  reality  re^t  upon 
this,  and  stand  or  fall  with  it.  I  wish  this  point  to  be 
distinctly  understood,  marked,  remembered,  and  inwardly 
digested.  It  was  in  fact  involved  in  the  preceding  Proposi- 
tion, according  to  its  real  import,  as  I  have  shown.  If,  then, 
I  have  succeeded  in  my  argument  there,  and  have  proved  that 
the  Law  of  the  Sabbath,  like  that  of  Marriage,  dates  "  from 
the  beginning"  of  the  world,  and  belongs  to  the  whole  race, 
then  I  have  in  fact  already  demolished  this  *^  Second  Proposi- 
tion," and,  vnth  it,  all  the  rest.  My  friend  W.  B.  T.  may 
exclaim  against  this  summary  conclusion,  in  reply  to  his  length- 
ened argument;  but  I  submit  it  even  to  him  as  a  ^'  good  logi- 
cian," if  the  entire  consequence  does  not  legitimately  follow.  I 
know  he  may  attempt  to  escape  the  consequence ;  but  it  will 
be  solely  by  challenging  the  proof  I  have  presented  of  the 
premises.  Of  such  challenge,  however,  I  feel  no  fear.  Why 
should  I  ?     I  live  for  Truth. 

It  may,  however,  be  satisfactory  to  him,  as  a  lover  of  truth 
and  consistency,  if  I  examine  all  his  remaining  Propositions 
and  reasonings  in  detail,  and  show  that  the  principles  I  have 
established  already  under  the  First  Proposition  pervade  the 


56  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Moral  and  ceremonial  distinctions  confounded.  Ceremonial  association. 

entire  New  Testament,  and  give  a  vital  unity  and  glorious 
harmony  to  all  the  various  facts  and  representations  of  the 
Bible.  If  the  patience  of  my  readers  will  hold  out,  I  will,  as 
far  as  time  and  space  permit,  undertake  this,  using  all  the 
brevity  consistent  with  justice  to  the  argument. 

Let  us  then  scrutinize  more  closely  this  Second  Proposi- 
tion, with  the  reasonings  of  W.  B.  T.  upon  it.  The  question 
between  us  here  is  precisely  this  :  he  affirms  the  strictly 
ceremonial  and  national  character  of  the  Sabbath,  and  I  its 
moral  and  universal  authority. 

Now,  I  take  it  for  granted  that  two  men  of  average 
intelligence  and  candor,  with  the  same  sources  of  evidence 
open  before  them,  could  not  come  to  such  opposite  conclusions 
on  a  question  like  this,  unless  the  question  were  complicated 
with  circumstances  that  tend  to  confound  moral  and  ceremo- 
nial distinctions,  and  thus  to  lead  one  of  them  unwittingly  to  a 
false  issue.  Here,  in  all  candor,  I  think  lies  the  root  of  my 
friend's  difficulties  ;  and  not  of  his  alone,  but  of  many  others 
whose  opinions  he  has  subsequently  quoted,  though  not  always 
to  the  point.  And  here  I  may  as  well  say,  once  for  all,  that, 
of  the  writers  he  has  cited,  I  think  only  Warburton  and 
Paley,  perhaps  Dr.  Whately  also  (eminent,  but  often  mis- 
taken men),  fully  agree  with  him  in  his  Anti-sabbatarian 
views.  Of  the  unguarded  language  of  others,  he  has  made  a 
use,  I  think,  they  never  designed ;  but  "  what  is  written  is 
written,'^  and  published  too ;  and  being  fairly  quoted  by  my 
friend,  must  go  for  what  it  is  worth. 

His  first  argument  for  the  ceremonial  nature  of  the  Sabbath 
is  drawn  from  the  fact  of  its  incorporation  with  the  ceremonial 
law  of  the  Jews. — Lev.  xxiii.  Qy.  10.)  The  fact  is  clear.  I 
admit  it.  His  inference  is — therefore  the  Sabbath  was  "  strictly 
ceremonial  and  Jewish.''  This  conclusion,  I  submit,  is  in 
logic  a  non  scquitur.  The  inference  dose  not  hi/  any  necessity 
follow  from  the  fact.  Let  us  try  it  in  another  strictly  parallel 
case.     The  Law  of  Marriage  was  incorporated  with  the  cere- 


MR.  brown's  second  REPLY.  57 

Jewish  motive  assigned.  The  Law  not  therefore  ceremonial  and  Jewish. 

monial  law  of  the  Jews.  The  fact  is  clear.  Therefore 
Marriage  is  a  "  strictly  ceremonial  and  Jewish  institution  !" 
Will  my  friend  W.  B.  T.  accept  this  inference  ?  It  is  just  as 
sound  as  his  own;  and  he  is  bound  either  to  accept  it  ih  hoth 
cases,  or  to  reject  it  in  both. 

His  next  argument  is  drawn  from  the  incorporation  of  a 
motive  from  Jewish  history  into  the  reasons  for  its  observance. 
— Dent.  V.  15.  {p.  10.)  But  this  is  explained  by  the  fact  that 
Moses  is  here  rehearsing  the  Decalogue  in  a  wsij  peculiarly 
applicable  to  the  Jewish  people.  No  such  motive  is  found  in 
the  Decalogue  itself,  as  originally  delivered  by  God  -,  although 
very  proper  to  be  added  afterwards  to  enforce  its  observance 
upon  them. 

But  suppose  it  were  found  appended  to  the  original  reason 
given  in  Ex.  xx.  11 ;  how  does  this  prove  the  Second  Proposi- 
tion ?  That  grand  ''republication  of  the  law  of  nature/' 
the  Decalogue,  was  given  to  mankind  through  that  nation^ 
till  the  Messiah  should  come.  {Beut.  xviii.  15 ;  Rom.  v.  20  ; 
Gal.  iii.  19.)  Though  universal  in  its  nature,  it  was  of  course 
particular  in  its  application.  It  was  all  for  the  time  incorpo- 
rated both  with  their  ceremonial  and  civil  code.  Was  it  all 
therefore  "  strictly  ceremonial  and  Jeioish  f^  "Will  W.  B.  T. 
really  affirm  this  ?  Much  of  his  reasoning  implies  it,  yet  I 
am  unwilling  to  impute  to  him  a  conclusion  so  immoral,  as  well 
as  illogical. 

Very  different,  it  seems  to  me,  is  the  language  of  our  Lord 
in  the  opening  of  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  ''Think  not 
that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets ;  I  am  come 
not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  till 
heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass 
from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled."  (J/««.  v.  17,  18.)  And 
lest  any  of  his  own  disciples,  in  consequence  of  the  abrogation 
of  the  strictly  Jewish  code,  should  suppose  and  teach  any  re- 
laxation of  the  moral  code,  he  adds  the  solemn  warning  which 
I  have  prefixed  as  a  motto  to  these  articles.     "  Whosoever 


58  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  Decalogue  enforced  by  Christ.  A  specification  unnecessary. 

therefore  shall  break  one  of  these  least  commandments,  and 
shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called  the  least  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven ;  but  whosoever  shall  do  and  t-each  them,  the  same 
shall  be  called  great  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.'^  That  by 
^'  these  commandments,''  our  Lord  meant  the  commandments 
of  the  Decalogue,  seems  to  me  so  perfectly  plain,  from  the 
specifications  which  follow,  that  I  consider  it  beyond  all 
dispute.  When  it  is  formally  denied,  it  will  be  time  enough 
formally  to  prove  it.  Let  it  suffice  now  to  say,  that  his  first 
examples  are  taken  from  the  sixth  and  seventh  (perhaps  also 
from  the  third  and  ninth)  commandments  of  the  Decalogue ; 
and  that  every  other  is  of  a  moral,  not  one  of  a  ceremonial 
nature,  throughout  this  whole  discourse.  Could  anything  add 
to  the  evidence  thus  given  that,  as  Lord  and  Judge  of  the 
world,  Christ  recognizes  the  Decalogue  as  the  immutable  Law 
of  God,  and  ratifies  all  its  commandments  in  their  genuine 
import,  and  stripped  of  every  Pharisaic  construction,  as  funda- 
mental laws  of  his  own  kingdom  ? 

I  can  think  of  but  one  objection  to  this,  so  far  as  the 
Sabbath  is  concerned.  It  may  be  said,  "  Christ  does  not 
specify  the  fourth  commandment  as  a  part  of  this  immutable 
law  3  therefore  it  may  be  an  exception."  Is  it  then  necessary, 
after  so  decisive  and  comprehensive  a  statement  as  to  every 
"jot  or  tittle  of  the  law,"  that  he  descend  to  a  specification 
of  everi/  commandment  ?  As  well  might  you  raise  the  same 
objection  against  the  first  commandment,  or  the  second,  or  the 
fifth,  or  the  eighth,  as  against  the  fourth.  "  But  He  does 
specify  them  elsewhere,"  it  may  be  said.  I  answer,  yes,  the 
fifth  and  eighth  (perhaps  the  first  and  tenth  also) ;  but  no- 
where the  second.  Is  the  second,  then,  abolished  by  Christ  ? 
What !  when  the  world  was  full  of  idolatry  and  image 
worship,  to  be  conquered  by  His  word  !  Absurd  and  monstrous 
supposition  !  I  do  not  impute  to  W.  B.  T.  such  quibbles  and 
evasions  as  these.  But  then  I  say,  equally  absurd  is  the 
attempt  to  detach  the  fourth  commandment  from  the  Decalogue ; 


MR.  brown's  second  REPLY.  59 

Human  authority  futUe.  '•  The  seventh  day"  of  the  Decalogue, — moral. 

of  which  it  ever  formed  au  integral  part,  from  the  day  that 
it  was  uttered  by  the  voice  of  God  from  the  blazing  summit 
of  Sinai,  and  was  engraven  by  his  finger  in  the  two  tables  of 
stone  ;  distinctions  equally  sublime  and  significant,  which  were 
never  accorded  to  any  of  the  merely  local  and  terrvporary  laws 
of  Judaism,  either  civil  or  ceremonial. 

The  Law  of  the  Sabbath,  then,  beyond  all  controversy,  is 
^^  one  of  these  commandments. ''  And  even  if  ^'  one  of  the 
least  of  them,^^  it  is  expressly  comprehended  in  the  warning 
of  our  Lord.  And  if  a  thousand  Christian  divines  of  the 
highest  distinction,  with  Luther  and  Calvin  at  their  head, 
were  to  ''break  it  and  to  teach  men  so,"  from  some  mistaken 
view  of  Christian  liberty  under  the  gospel,  how  would  that 
alter  the  case  ?  Will  they  sit  on  the  throne  of  final  judgment, 
and  pronounce  our  sentence?  They  are  but  men;  great  men 
indeed,  but  fallible ;  and  to  their  own  Master,  in  this  matter, 
they  stand  or  fall.  I,  too,  could  quote  great  divines  on  my 
side.     But  I  will  not.     Let  Christ  speak  for  himself. 

But  "the  particular  day,  'the  seventh  day,'  is  also,"  says 
my  friend,  "  an  integral  portion  of  the  Decalogue.  Is  that 
also  acknowledged  to  be  of  a  moral  nature?"  (p.  23.)  This 
I  have  so  fully  answered  already  under  the  preceding  Propo- 
sition, that  I  should  not  advert  to  it  again,  except  to  correct 
my  friend,  who  quotes  me  as  allowing "  that  a  'part  of  the 
Decalogue  is  not  of  a  moral  nature."  I  have  made  no  such 
exception.  The  seventh  day  of  the  Decalogue  I  hold  to  be  a 
part  of  the  moral  law  of  the  Sabbath,  but  not  the  mere  cir- 
cumstance of  its  order  or  mode  of  designation.  Half  the  dis- 
pute at  least,  on  this  subject,  springs  from  confounding  two 
things  perfectly  distinct  in  their  nature,  viz  :  the  seventh  day 
of  the  Decalogue,  and  the  seventh  day  of  the  Jewish  week. 
The  connection  was  fixed  by  statute  only  for  that  people. 
This  therefore  may  be  changed  by  competent  authority;  I 
mean  by  the  authority  of  "the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  day," 
without  touching  "one  jot  or  tittle"  of  the  Decalogue.     And 


60  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Au  historical  mistake  corrected.  The  Sabbath  purified,  and  ennobled. 

it  loas  changed,  as  we  have  seen.  The  connection  was  dis- 
solved at  once,  by  the  abrogation  of  the  Jewish  code.  The 
Decalogue  remained  immutable,  but  all  else  that  tvas  joeculiai' 
to  Judaism  was  abolished. 

But  the  Sabbath  "  was  actually  peculiar  to  the  Jews,"  says 
my  friend.  "  Throughout  all  history  we  discover  no  trace  of  a 
Sabbath  among  the  nations  of  antiquity."  (p.  24.)  My  friend 
here  speaks  as  if  all  history  were  under  his  eye.  But  he  has 
fallen  into  a  mistake  here,  which  proves  that  he  has  not  read  all 
history.  I  have  corrected  his  mistake  by  the  united  testimony 
of  seveii  competent  witnesses : — Hesiod,  Homer,  Callima- 
CHUS,  Philo,  Josephus,  Clement,  and  Eusebius. 

But  *^  moral  law,"  says  my  friend,  "  being  founded  on  natu- 
ral and  universal  relations,  must  be  as  immutable  as  those  re- 
lations." (2?.  24.)  Granted.  And,  therefore,  the  Decalogue,  which 
is  founded  on  such  relations,  remained  intact,  when  everything 
"  strictly  ceremonial  and  Jewish"  was  swept  away  like  shadows 
before  the  sun ! 

But,  says  W.  B.  T.,  ^^the  Sabbath  has  been  changed  in  its 
period,  changed  in  the  reasons  for  its  observance,  changed  in 
the  character  of  its  requirements,  and  changed  in  its  sanction." 
(p.  24.)  Wherein  ?  It  is  still  the  same  weekly  "period"  required 
by  the  Decalogue.  The  original  "  reasons"  for  its  observance 
remain ;  only  new  and  niore  affecting  motives  have  been  sup- 
plied, by  the  death  and  resurrection  of  our  Bedeemer !  No 
change  has  been  made  in  the  "nature  of  its  observance,"  except 
the  abolition  of  the  "  strictly  ceremonial  and  Jewish"  code, 
with  which  it  once  was  incorporated,  together  with  all  the 
peculiar  constructions,  penalties,  and  sanctions  of  that  code. 
Like  Marriage,  it  now  stands  as  "  in  the  beginning ;"  pure  from 
every  tincture  of  Judaism;  hallowed  and  beautified  with  new  and 
loftier  associations.  Pre-eminently  now  a  part  of  "  the  perfect 
and  royal  law  of  liberty,"  from  the  slaver}^  of  the  woB^d,  the 
bright  link  of  man  with  man,  and  earth  with  heaven,  the  safeguard 
of  virtue,  the  glory  of  religion,  the  pillar  and  prop  of  society,  the 


MR.  brown's  second  REPLY.  61 


Col.  ii.  tiecessaribj  limited.    Perpetuity  of  the  Decalogue  taught  by  Christ. 

palladium  of  nations,  "  the  pearl  of  days,"  the  blessing  of  this 
world,  and  the  beacon  light  of  that  which  is  to  come ; 
who  that  rightly  understands  its  worth,  can  fail  to  "call  the 
Sabbath  a  delight,  the  holy  of  the  Lord  honorable  V 

But  my  friend  now  calls  in  to  his  aid  the  authority  of  the 
Apostle  to  the  Gentiles.  *'  '  Sabbath-days,'  "  says  Paul  (in  Col. 
ii.  16,  17),  'are  a  sliadoio  of  good  things  to  come.'  This, 
apart  from  all  the  previous  considerations,  would  itself  be  con- 
clusive. No  one  will  pretend  that  a  shadow  or  type  can  be 
other  than  ritual. '^  (p.  24.)  My  friend  has  inserted  the  word 
"  good"  into  the  teXt ;  probably  from  inadvertence.  I  hope 
its  discovery  may  be  a  lesson  of  caution  and  charity  to  him  in 
future.  But  now  for  the  Apostle's  meaning.  "  The  language 
of  the  text,"  says  my  friend,  ''is  comprehensive  and  unquali- 
fied. The  weekly  Sabbaths  are  certainly  at  least  as  much  in- 
cluded in  the  phrase  '  Sabbath-days,'  as  any  other  '  ceremo- 
nial fasts  and  festivals  of  the  Jews.' — 'This  is  clear  from  the 
context,'  and  confirmed  by  the  uniform  tenor  of  the  other  Epis- 
tles. He  who  asserts  a  limitation  of  its  application  must 
clearly  prove  it."  (p.  25.)  And  I  hope  clearly  to  prove  it 
thus.  Paul  is  the  servant  of  Jesus  Christ.  Jesus  Christ 
taught  the  perpetuity  of  the  Decalogue,  in  even  the  least  of  its 
commandments,  of  which  the  Sabbath  is  one.  This,  therefore, 
was  the  doctrine  of  Paul.  "  The  disciple  is  not  above  his  Mas- 
ter," says  Christ,  "  but  every  one  that  is  perfect,  shall  be  as 
his  Master."  [Luke  vi.  40.)  With  what  astonishment  would 
Paul,  if  he  were  now  among  us  hoclili/,  behold  an  attempt 
to  torture  his  language  into  a  direct  opposition  to  a  fundamen- 
tal doctrine  of  his  Master  !  What  conceivable  form  of  "wrest- 
ing the  Scriptures"  could  be  more  painful  to  his  generous 
spirit  ?  It  may  not  be  !  Having  received  the  Grospel  by  the 
direct  "revelation  of  Jesus  Christ"  (^Gal.  i.  11,  12),  it  is  im- 
possible that  he  could  mean  to  teach  the  abrogation  of  the  De- 
calogue, in  direct  contradiction  to  his  Lord.  Any  interpretation 
that  leads  to  such  an  issue  violates  an  axiom,  and  overturns 
6 


62  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

No  contradiction  possible.    Neither  Christ,  nor  Paul, — Anti-sabbatarian. 

the  first  principles  of  all  sound  interpretation.  It  is  nothing 
less,  in  effect,  than  attempting  to  make  the  Saviour  contradict 
himself.  It  follows,  that  the  weekly  Sabbath  days  are  not  cer- 
tainly included,  but  only  those  'peculiar  to  Judaism,  and  which 
the  false  teachers  upheld  in  opposition  to  Christ,  as  '^  the  head 
of  all  principality  and  power. '^  (verse  10th.)  The  whole  of 
the  context,  from  verse  6th  to  verse  10th  of  this  chapter,  is 
the  Apostle's  protest  against  these  Judaizing  teachers.  They 
would  have  placed  the  yoke  of  circumcision,  and  of  the  whole 
Jewish  law  upon  the  Gentile  believers.  Paul  resists  this  un- 
warrantable imposition,  by  showing,  1,  that  Christ,  as  ''  Head 
over  all  things,"  had  a  right  to  set  it  aside ;  2,  that  he  had 
really  conferred  on  believers  all  the  blessings  it  vainly  prom- 
ised; 3,  that,  therefore,  Christ  was  the  substance^  and  that 
ceremonial  system  but  the  "  shadow  ;''  from  all  which,  it  fol- 
lows that  no  man  could  lawfully  condemn  them  for  not  ob- 
serving it,  in  any  part  of  its  burdensome  ritual.  Even  to 
observe  the  Sabbath,  in  a  Jewish  way  (i.  e.,  on  the  seventh 
day  of  the  week,  and  in  combination  with  other  Jewish  ^'  holy 
days"),  would,  in  a  G-entile  Christian,  be  wrong;  in  a  Jewish 
Christian,  it  must  be  a  matter  of  indifiference,  expediency,  and 
condescension  only ;  but  for  either  to  observe  it  as  a  part  of 
an  obligator!/  ritual,  would  be  a  renunciation  of  the  authority 
of  Christ,  and,  therefore,  of  the  Gospel  itself.  It  is  in  this  con- 
nection Paul  uses  this  strong  language  here  and  elsewhere, 
which  some  have  mistaken  for  a  repudiation  of  the  Decalogue, 
and  among  them,  my  friend  W.  B.  T. 

The  truth  is,  such  a  mistake  in  him  is  a  logical  result  of  his 
principles.  He  starts  wrong  at  the  beginning.  He  does  not 
recognize  the  moral  law  in  the  Decalogue.  His  stand-point 
is  not  that  of  Christ,  and,  therefore,  not  of  Paul.  Hence,  he 
allows  not  to  the  ardent  language  of  the  apostle,  in  a  contest 
against  Judaizing  teachers,  the  necessary  limitations  that  keep 
it  in  holy  harmony  with  the  doctrine  of  his  Lord.  This  is  the 
source  of  that  fatal  confusion  in  an  intellect  naturally  bright 


MR.  brown's  second  REPLY.  63 

The  Apostle  misunderstood.      Wrong  construction  of  the  word  "  work." 

and  clear,  and  therefore  the  more  likely,  when  itself  misled, 
to  '^make  the  worse  appear  the  better  reason." 

Let  me  make  Paul's  meaning  plain  by  an  illustration.  Sup- 
pose, with  my  views  of  the  Decalogue  and  of  the  Sabbath,  I 
were  arguing  with  a  modern  Jew,  or,  if  you  please,  with  a 
Seventh  Day  Baptist  (many  of  whom  are  yet  excellent  men), 
and  they  both  should  insist  upon  the  obligation  of  the  seventh 
day  of  the  iceeh  in  opposition  to  the  first.  I  should  resist  them 
both  as  Paul  does,  on  the  very  ground  that  they,  wittingly  or 
imwittingly,  upheld  the  authority  of  the  whole  abrogated  Jew- 
ish ritual,  and  denied  the  authority  of  Christ  as  Head  over  all. 
And  if  I  saw  any  of  my  fellow-Christians,  from  weakness  of 
faith,  and  tenderness  of  conscience,  yielding  to  the  plausible 
reasonings  which  would  confound,  in  a  single  point,  the  Jew- 
ish ritual  with  the  Decalogue,  I  would  invoke  them,  by  all 
their  obligations  of  adoring  gratitude  to  a  crucified  Redeemer, 
to  "  stand  fast  in  the  liberty  with  which  Christ  had  made  them 
free.''  Does  W.  B.  T.  now  understand  me  ?  Does  he  not 
now  understand  Paul  ? 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  argument  is  that  W.  B.  T.  is 
not  justified  in  the  confident  announcement  that  the  Sabbath 
was  a  ''  strictly  Jewish  and  ceremonial  institution.''  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  demonstrated  by  the  highest  of  all  evidence,  the 
testimony  of  Christ  himself,  that  it  is  an  integral  and  insepa- 
rable part  of  the  Moral  Law,  and,  therefore,  of  universal  and 
perpetual  obligation. 

III.  The  Third  Proposition,  that  "  Jesus  studiousJi/  and 
repeatedly  violated  the  Sabbath,"  W.  B.  T.  has  attempted  to 
defend  at  length ;  but  so  weakly,  that  it  will  require  but  few 
remarks  in  reply,  and  those  chiefly  by  way  of  explanation. 

His  defence  is  built  upon  the  construction  of  the  word 
"  work,"  in  the  fourth  commandment.  ''  The  lighting  of  a 
fire,  the  gathering  of  grain  or  food,  the  picking  up  of  sticks, 
iinnecessari/  walking,  even  the  carrying  the  slightest  burden," 


64  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  Sabbath,  and  the  "  Shew-bread,"  not  perfectly  parallel. 

he  says,  "  all  fall  within  the  legal  construction  of  the  prohibi- 
tion/' (p.  26.) 

Had  he  put  the  word  ^^unnecessary,"  which  he  prefixes 
alone  to  "walking,"  before  the  entire  enumeration,  he  would 
have  stated  the  exact  truth.  But  now  it  conveys  a  wrong  and 
injurious  impression,  injurious  to  the  Jewish  code,  and  inju- 
rious to  our  Saviour.  By  a  miracle,  every  week  repeated  in 
the  wilderness,  Grod  had  made  the  gathering  of  food,  the  light- 
ing of  a  fire,  &c.,  on  the  Sabbath  unnecessary.  To  do  any  of 
these  things  in  such  circumstances  was  therefore  justly  con- 
strued as  a  violation  of  the  law.  But  when  the  Pharisees  ap- 
plied this  construction  to  the  act  of  the  disciples,  who  plucked 
the  grain  merely  to  satisfy  the  cravings  of  hunger,  our  Saviour 
says  justly  that  they  "  condemned  the  guiltless."  My  friend 
must  be  hard  driven  for  evidence,  when  he  infers  from  the  case 
of  David  eating  the  shew-bread,  a  perfect  parallel  between  the 
two  laws.  David  did  do  in  his  necessity  iDliat  loas  unlawful 
by  the  express  terms  of  the  ceremonial  statute ;  and  necessity 
alone  excused  him.  But  the  disciples  did  not  violate  the  Sab- 
bath at  all,  for  no  "necessary"  work  was  forbidden,  as. is  clear 
from  the  case  of  the  priests  in  the  temple.  When  our  Saviour 
says,  "  they  pro/a^e  the  Sabbath,  and  are  hlameless,''  he  evi- 
dently means  to  confound  the  Pharisees  on  their  own  principles 
of  construction.  On  any  other  view,  the  language  would  be 
self-contradictory.  On  this  view,  it  is  perfectly  in  point.  And 
when  he  adds  that  "  there  is  one  present  greater  than  the  tem- 
ple," meaning  himself,  he  evidently  claims  that  his  authority 
is  paramount  in  settling  the  construction,  and  his  decision  final 
in  pronouncing  his  disciples  "guiltless." 

To  charge  our  Lord  with  a  "  studied  violation  of  the  Sab- 
bath," because  he  commanded  the  impotent  man  whom  he  had 
healed  on  the  Sabbath  day  to  "take  up  his  bed  and  walk,"  is 
again  to  adopt  the  Pharisaic  construction. — For  the  poor  man's 
bed  was  evidently  nothing  but  xpaSSatov  (Jcrahhatoii),  a  small 
portable  coucli  or  mattress,  such  as  travellers   carried  about 


MR.  brown's  second  REPLY.  65 

Doing  good,  lawful.  Bi.^hop  Warbuuton's  argument  fallacious. 

with  them;  and  yet  to  carry  it  home  with  him,  is  construed  by 
my  friend  W.  B.  T.  as  "  in  the  very  face  of  the  express  inter- 
dict" (in  Jer.  xvii.  21)  against  bearing  burdens  on  the  Sab- 
bath day  !  I  suppose  on  the  same  principle  he  must  consider 
our  Lord's  healivg  on  that  day  a  "  studied  violation  of  the  Sab- 
bath.""  Happily  we  have  a  better  authority  to  assure  us,  every- 
where and  always,  that  "  it  is  Imcful  to  do  good  on  the  Sabbath 
day." 

In  truth,  the  only  argument  of  any  weight  under  this  Pro- 
position (and  that  belongs  under  the  'preceding j  and  does  not 
sustain  tliii)  is  drawn  from  the  words  of  our  Lord  which  I  had 
quoted  in  proof  that  the  Sabbath  is  of  a  moral  nature,  and  of 
universal  force,  viz.,  *^  The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and 
not  man  for  the  Sabbath."  My  friend  asks,  "  Could  he  have 
said  this  of  any  law  but  a  positive  and  ceremonial  one  ?  As- 
suredly NOT  !"  (/?.  27.)  I  answer.  Why  not?  The  argument 
which  he  quotes  from  Bishop  Warburton,  and  adopts  as 
decisive  of  the  question,  I  think  is  only  one  of  the  Bishop's 
specious  fallacies. — Try  it  on  a  kindred  case — ^just  substituting 
the  Law  of  Marriage  for  the  Law  of  the  Sabbath.  Axiom, 
''  Man  was  not  made  for  Marriage,  but  Marriage  was  made  for 
man."  Now  look  at  the  argument  of  the  Bishop.  "Were 
the  observance  of  the  Law  of  Marriage  (in  the  seventh  com- 
mandment) a  natural  duty,  it  is  certain  man  was  made  for 
that  law ;  the  end  of  his  creation  being  for  the  observance  of 
the  moral  laio.  On  the  contrary,  all  positive  institutions  were 
made  for  man."  And  now  for  my  friend's  inference,  "This 
furnishes  a  proof  that  the  [seventh]  ccTnimandment  is  positive, 
ceremonial,  and  Jewish  !"  Who  does  not  perceive  the  fallacy 
of  this? 

The  truth  is,  there  is  a  distinction  in  moral  laws,  which 
this  argument  overlooks  altogether.  Our  Saviour  teaches 
(^Matt.  V.  19)  that  some  of  the  precepts  of  the  law  of  G-od, 
though  of  binding  force  to  the  end  of  time,  are  yet  of  less  im- 
portance than  others.     Some  moral  la\7s  are  founded  in  moral 

6* 


66  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

A  distinction  in  moral  laws.  Christ's  vindication. 

relations  wHch  exist  in  the  present  world,  but  not  in  the  next. 
Thus  it  is  with  the  moral  laws  of  conjugal  and  filial  affection. 
Yet  how  truly  moral,  universal,  and  sacred  here  !  And  thus 
it  is  with  the  law  of  the  Sabbath.  It  is  founded  upon  our 
moral  relations  to  God  and  man  in  the  present  life,  whether 
necessary  or  not  in  the  future;  as  I  showed  in  my  very  first 
communication.  Of  that  argument  for  the  moral  nature  of  the 
Sabbath,  W.  B.  T.  in  his  defence  has  taken  no  notice  what- 
ever. But  I  cannot  help  saying  here  that  if  he  can  set  aside 
the  moral  nature  of  the  fourth  commandment,  it  will  be  an 
easy  thing,  by  the  same  process,  to  set  aside  the  fifth  and 
seventh  •  not  to  say  the  sixth,  eighth,  ninth,  and  tenth. 
^^  Facilis  descensus  Averni  ;  sed  revocare — .''  He  will  under- 
stand and  appreciate  this  school-boy  quotation, 

I  know  he  accuses  me  of  making  '^sad  nonsense"  of  our 
Lord's  words  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  (p.  28.)  And 
the  argument,  as  he  ingeniously  puts  it,  is,  as  he  says,  "  logic 
with  a  vengeance."  But  let  me  try  to  put  it  in  its  proper 
shape.  "You  accuse  my  disciples,"  says  Christ,  ''of  break- 
ing the  Sabbath.  I  have  proved  that  you  arc  both  unjust  and 
inconsistent  with  yourselves,  in  this  accusation."  (See  his 
whole  argument  on  this  point  above.)  "  But  now,  to  cover  the 
whole  ground  of  right  construction  in  future,  I  lay  down  this 
broad  axiom,  '  The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man 
for  the  Sabbath.'  And  because,  designed  like  all  other  moral 
laws  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  race,  therefore  the  Son  of 
Man  (to  whom  it  is  given  to  judge  the  whole  race),  is  Lord  also 
of  the  Sabbath  day  :  i.  e*  the  proper  judge  of  the  manner  of  its 
observance  or  desecration.  In  the  exercise  of  this  rightful 
authority,  I  must  rescue  it  from  your  technical  and  bigoted 
construction,  and  restore  it  to  its  original  use  and  end." 

I  submit  to  every  unprejudiced  mind,  nay,  I  submit  to  W. 
B.  T.  himself,  whether  there  is  any  want  of  logical  connection, 
or  sound  sense,  or  self  consistency,  in  our  Lord's  words,  ac- 
cording to  this  construction.     On  the  contrary,  do  tliey  not. 


MR.  BROWN'S  SECOND  REPLY. 


Tlie  charge  of  "violation"'  made  by  Pharisees:  not  by  Christian  writers. 

when  thus  understood,  perfectly  agree  with  his  character,  his 
office,  his  uniform  doctrine,  and  all  the  exigencies  of  the  case  ? 
Thus  understood,  what  a  sublime  dignity  do  they  give  to  the 
Sabbath,  and  to  him  as  "  the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath/^  But  un- 
derstand them  as  W.  B.  T.  would  have  us,  and  every  trace  of 
their  glory  vanishes.  "The  Son  of  Man  is  Lord,"  of  what? 
Of  a  ''  strictly  ceremonial  and  Jewish  institute !"  "  entirely 
subservient  to  men !"  and  vanishing  away  with  other  "  sha- 
dows I"  "  No  great  harm  in  breaking  '  shadows,'  you  know," 
says  my  friend  gayly.  Most  true ;  but  take  care  that  you  do 
not  impinge  upon  something  more  substantial !  Take  care 
that  you  do  not  strike  at  foundation-stones  in  the  great  edifice 
of  religion  and  morals.  "  The  truth  is  (to  use  his  own  lan- 
guage in  part,  ^?.  28),  this  much  perverted  quotation  {Hark 
ii.  28)  was  pronounced  not  as  a  check  upon  [Sabbatarians], 
but  to  counteract  [bigoted  Pharisees] ;  and  honesty  requires 
that  it  should  not  be  employed  for  an  opposite  purpose." 

To  conclude  this  part  of  the  subject.  My  friend  thinks  the 
passages  in  3Iatt  xii.  2;  3I(U'7c  ii.  24;  John  v.  10,  16,  18; 
and  ix.  16,  must  have  escaped  my  memory,  when  I  observed, 
on  this  Third  Proposition,  "  This  is  the  first  time  I  remember 
to  have  seen  '  him  who  knew  no  sin,'  charged  with  a  '  stu- 
died and  repeated  violation  of  the  law  of  God.'  "  (p.  29.)  By  no 
means.  I  knew  that  Pharisaic  Jews  had  brought  the  charge 
])efore  ;  but  I  meant  (as  my  context  shows)  that  it  was  the 
first  time  I  had  found  that  charge  indorsed  by  a  Christian 
writer.  I  had  indeed  read  Paley;  but  I  thought  his  language 
was  more  guarded;  and  on  recurring  to  Paley' s  argument,  I 
am  happy  to  acquit  him  of  the  charge  in  question ;  nor  do  I 
now  remember  any  professedly  Christian  writer,  except  the 
author  of  these  Propositions,  who  has  indorsed  it.  That  the 
Jews  did  make  the  charge  "  with  malice  prepense,"  is  mani- 
fest; but  I  think  too  well  of  my  friend  W.  B.  T.,  in  spite  of  all 
his  mistakes,  to  class  him  with  men  who  had  murder  in  their 
hearts  against  the  "  Lord  of  the  Sabbath." 


68  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Injurious  to  Christ's  character.  1  Tim.  i. — not  fully  examined. 

Nevertheless,  I  am  bound  to  remind  him  that  this  charge 
against  our  Lord  is  a  grave  one,  and  if  not  sustained  (as  I 
think  on  reflection  he  must  feel  that  it  is  not),  demands  on  his 
part  profound  regret,  and  public  retraction.  It  is  "  a  word 
against  the  Son  of  Man,''  which,  though  not  unpardonable  (as 
He  in  his  mercy  assures  us),  is  yet  really  "false  and  calum- 
nious," injurious  to  his  honor,  to  his  purity,  to  his  piety,  to 
his  self-consistency,  to  his  uniform  regard  for  the  Sabbath,  and 
for  the  virtue  and  happiness  of  mankind,  to  say  nothing  of  his 
self-consuming  zeal  for  their  salvation.  May  the  mild  majestic 
eye  that  once  looked  on  Peter,  look  on  my  friend ! 

IV.  His  Fourth  Proposition,  that  "the  New  Testament 
never  encourages  Sabbath  observance  nor  condemns  Sabbath- 
breaking,"  will  detain  me  but  for  a  moment.  It  is  so  vitally 
involved  in  what  has  been  discussed  that  every  one  will  see 
that  the  proper  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  before  Christ's  re- 
surrection on  the  seventh  day  of  the  Jewish  week,  and  after 
that  memorable  event,  upon  the  first,  is  always  implied,  as 
well  as  often  expressed.  Indeed  it  is  evident  that  for  many 
years  the  Apostles  observed  hotli,  though  for  different  reasons 
and  only  among  the  Jews. 

My  friend  treats  with  lightness  the  evidence  I  adduced  from 
1  Tim.  i.  9 — 11,  of  the  condemnation  of  Sabbath-breaking,  as 
one  species  of profaneness.  (^p.  29.)  I  do  not  wonder;  since  it 
is  quite  evident,  from  the  manner  in  which  he  quotes  it  and 
comments  on  it,  that  he  looked  only  at  the  9tli  verse.  But  I 
beg  him  to  examine  this  passage  again.  The  force  of  the  ar- 
gument it  yields  lies  open  before  every  plain  English  reader, 
in  the  order  observed  by  the  Apostle  in  his  specification  of  sins 
and  sinners.  So  exact  a  correspondence  with  the  order  of  the 
ten  commandments  of  the  Decalogue  cannot  be  the  work  of 
chance.  It  follows,  1.  That  the  Decalogue  is  recognized  as 
the-  moral  standard  "  according  to  the  glorious  Crospel  of  the 
blessed  God."  2.  That  Sahhatli-hreahers  are  certainly  includ- 
ed among  "  the  ungodly  and  profane,"  and  as  such  condemn- 


MR.  brown's  second  REPLY.  ()9 

The  Decalogue  recognized  :  and  Sabbatli-brcakers  condemned. 

ed.  The  force  of  this  conclusion  is  heightened  by  a  more  exact 
translation  of  the  first  words,  thus,  "  The  law  does  not  lie 
against  a  righteous  man,  but  against  the  lawless  and  disobedi- 
ent, the  ungodly  and /)ro/a??e,  &c.  Against  all  such  (including 
Sabbath-breakers)  the  law  of  God  is  levelled."  A  thought 
more  pregnant  with  grave  and  solemn  meaning  can  hardly  be 
conceived.  My  friend  in  his  haste  must  have  overlooked  the 
real  force  and  bearing  of  this  passage  on  the  argument,  or  he 
could  not  have  treated  it  lightly.  This  is  my  excuse  for  liiniy 
for  only  "fools  make  a  mock  at  sin."     {Prov.  xiv.  9.) 

I  regret  that  I  cannot  take  up  the  two  remaining  Proposi- 
tions this  week.  They  are  defended  by  W.  B.  T.  with  an  ability, 
an  earnestness,  an  extent  of  reading  and  research,  a  force  of 
personal  conviction,  and  mingled  feelings  of  triumph  and  ten- 
derness towards  me,  beyond  anything  he  has  before  dis- 
played ;  and  really  worthy  of  a  better  cause.  Though  still 
compelled  to  differ  from  him  in  his  main  conclusion,  I  am 
happy  to  see  some  common  ground  where  I  can  embrace  him 
with  sentiments  of  esteem  as  well  as  of  admiration  and  affec- 
tion. I  look  forward  to  the  encounter  with  him  where  we 
disagree,  with  something  (though  not  unkindly)  of 

"That  stern  joy  whlcli  warriors  feel 
In  foemen  worthy  of  their  steel." 

I  shall  aim  to  do  full  justice  to  his  arguments,  but  I  promise 
in  my  Reply  not  to  exceed  the  length  of  his  own  defence.  In 
the  mean  time  may  the  "  Lord  of  the  Sabbath"  throw  around 
my  friend  the  pure  radiance  of  "  the  perfect  law  of  liberty," 
that  he  may  "  see  things  as  they  are." 

J.  N.  B. 


70  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 


The  Council  at  Jerusalem. 


PART  III. 

"Whosoever  therefore  shall  break  one  of  these  least  commandments, 
and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven ;  but  whosoever  shall  do  and  teach  them,  the  same  shall  be 
called  great  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven." — Matthew  v.  19. 


I  SNATCH  time  from  repose  to  finish  my  Reply  to  W.  B.  T. 
Some  of  my  friends  liave  been  pleased  to  express  their  ap- 
proval of  my  last  article  on  all  points  but  one — its  length. 
But  it  seems  to  me,  on  this  score,  i/ou,  Messrs.  Editors,  have 
the  best  right  to  complain.  I  do  not  wish  to  abuse  your  forbear- 
ance. Well-considered  brevity  does  give  to  a  discourse  new 
force  and  beauty.  But,  give  me  the  full  length  living  man, 
even  of  large  proportions,  rather  than  the  mummy  regularly 
embalmed,  shrunk,  and  shortened  !  Some  others  of  my  friends 
think  that  I  have  treated  W.  B.  T.  with  too  much  indulgence. 
I  wonder  whether  such,  if  aiming  at  the  front  of  the  defying 
Philistine,  would,  like  David,  have  chosen  the  smooth  stones 
from  the  brook.  All  tastes  cannot  be  satisfied.  I  prefer  the 
smooth  stones,  the  free  hand,  and  the  full  sweep  of  the  sling. 
But  wisdom  is  profitable  to  direct,  especially  'Hhe  wisdom 
which  is  from  above ;  which  is  first  pure,  then  peaceable,  gentle, 
and  easy  to  be  entreated,  full  of  mercy  and  good  fruits,  loithout 
jjartialitT/  and  without  hijpocTisy.  And  the  fruit  of  righteous- 
ness is  sown  in  peace,  of  them  that  make  peaceJ'  (James  iii. 
17,  18.)  May  that  wisdom  from  above  be  given  to  me  in 
this  Discussion,  and  also  to  my  friend  ! 

V.  The  Fifth  Proposition  defended  by  my  friend  W.  B. 
T.  is,  that  ^^  the  Sabbath  was  formally  abrogated  by  the  first 
council  at  Jerusalem.'' 

I  had  said  of  this  at  first,  '^  it  is  a  pure  assumption,  without 
a  shadow  of  proof.  I  meet  it  with  an  unequivocal  denial."  My 
friend  W.  B.  T.,  it  appears,  thinks  my  brevity  here  even  too 
laconic.  So  easy  it  is  in  argument  to  err  on  either  side,  of  full- 
ness or  conciseness. 


MR.  brown's  second  REPLY.  71 

A  statement  generally  correct.  Three  prohibitions  declared. 

It  is  doubtless  very  kind  in  him  to  '^  refresh  my  memory'' 
with  the  history  of  that  "  important  judicial  deliberation." 
Though  I  studied  it  with  some  care  about  thirty  years  ago 
(when,  perhaps,  my  friend  was  in  his  cradle),  yet  I  am  getting 
somewhat  old  and  forgetful.  But  to  be  serious,  I  am  really 
obliged  to  him  for  presenting  so  clear  and  concise  a  statement 
of  the  circumstances  and  occasion  of  that  first  Church  Council. 
It  is  in  the  main  so  good,  that  I  accept  it  with  pleasure,  waiv- 
ing any  verbal  criticism  on  the  ambiguous  phrase,  ^'  to  invoke 
the  authority  of  the  Catholic  church."  Substantially,  though 
not  inform,  this  was  a  ^'general  council;"  not  because  all  the 
churches  then  in  Syria,  Cilicia,  and  Palestine  were  represented 
by  chosen  delegates,  but  because  '^  the  Apostles"  were  present, 
together  with  '^  the  elders"  and  ^^  the  brethren"  of  Jerusalem. 
My  friend  says  (p.  31)  :  ^'  The  great  subject  presented  for 
the  consideration  and  adjudication  of  this  general  council,  was 
evidently  the  ichole  '  Law  of  Moses,'  and  the  extent  of  its  ob- 
ligation." (^Acts  XV.  5.)  Precisely  so.  "  And  the  decision 
arrived  at,  ^  after  there  had  been  much  disputing,'  excepted 
from  abrogation"  says  my  friend,  ''but  three  prohibitions  of  the 
law,  as  '  necessary  things'  to  be  abstained  from  3  namely  idola- 
try,  fornication,  and  the  eating  of  tilings  strangled,  and  hlood." 
Very  true.  He  adds,  "  As  Paley  very  correctly  states,  '  the 
observance  of  the  Sabbath  was  not  one  of  the  articles  enjoined 
by  the  Apostles,  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  Acts,  upon  them 
which  from  among  the  Gentiles  were  turned  unto  God.'"  Here 
is  a  fair  statement  of  the  case.  And  what  then?  How  does 
it  bear  upon  the  Fifth  Proposition,  "  that  the  Sabbath  was 
then  formally  abrogated." 

This  W.  B.  T.  proposes  to  show.  I  had  said  at  first  that 
"  this  decision  does  not  afi'ect  the  original  law  of  the  Sabbath," 
and  that  ''the  key  to  the  whole  fallacy  (in  this  Fifth  Proposition) 
is  in  the  wrong  sense  given  by  the  writer  to  the  term  Law." 
{p.  18.)  But  this,  W.  B.  T.  does  not  admit.  "  The  whole  con- 
text above  (he  says)  shows  incontroveriihly  that  the  ecclesias- 


72  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 


Wrong  application  of  the  term  "  Law."  Argument  analyzed. 

tical  decree  was  not  restricted  to  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law, 
by  its  actually  specifying  two  provisions  o^  the  moral  law/' 
He  then  adds,  on  my  statement,  ^'  So  wrong  a  sense  given  to 
the  term  '  Law'  by  my  friend,  is  really  worse  than  a  fallacy  V 
{p.  31.)     Here,  then,  we  are  fairly  at  issue. 

My  friend's  argument  is  ingenious  and  plausible.  It  is  put 
together  with  skill,  and  to  his  own  mind  was  no  doubt  ^'in- 
controvertible.'^ But  I  must  take  the  liberty  to  examine  both 
its  form,  its  materials,  and  its  strength.  Analyzed,  it  stands 
thus  :  Position.  The  term  Law  is  not  here  to  be  restricted 
to  the  ceremonial  laio  of  the  Jews,  but  includes  also  the 
Decalogue.  Proof,  1.  The  phrase  {verse  5)  "  Law  of 
Moses"  means  the  whole  Law.  2.  Two  commands  of  the 
moral  law  are  specified.  3.  Gentiles  were  never  bound  by 
the  Law  of  the  Sabbath.  4.  The  Law  of  the  Sabbath  would 
have  been  not  a  little  burdensome  to  them.  5.  The  whole 
Law  of  Moses  was  abrogated  (as  to  the  Gentiles)  except  in 
three  points,  neither  of  which  includes  the  Sabbath.  Con- 
clusion. Therefore  ''  it  is  impossible"  that  the  term  can  be 
restricted,  or  that  the  Law  of  the  Sabbath  can  be  obligatory 
on  Gentile  Christians. — Nor  is  this  conclusion  set  aside,  even 
if  a  restriction  of  the  term  were  conceded.  For  the  Law  of 
the  Sabbath  has  been  already  proved  to  be  ceremonial  (Pro- 
position n.)  )  therefore  the  abrogation  of  the  ceremonial  law 
alone,  would  abrogate  the  Sabbath. — And  this  conclusion  again 
is  strengthened  by  subsequent  facts.  For  1.  The  Gentile 
Christians,  on  learning  the  Apostolic  decision,  ''rejoiced  for 
the  consolation."  2.  They  kept  no  Sabbath;  but  met  only 
on  the  7norning  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  employing  the 
rest  of  the  day  in  ordinary  work.  3.  The  Jewish  Christians 
did  the  same,  only  that  they  still  kept  the  seventh  day  Sab- 
bath.— The  conclusion  of  the  whole  is,  that  the  abrogation  of 
the  Sabbath  by  this  Council  is  "as  certain  and  distinct"  as 
that  of  Circumcision.  And  in  this  conclusion  Bishop  War- 
burton  and  John  Bunyan,  as  well  as  Dr.  Paley,  agree. 


MR.  brown's  second  REPLY.  73 

The  ceremonial  and  civil  code.  Moral  laws  not  in  dispute. 

Presuming  W.  B.  T.  will  admit  this  as  a  fair  analysis  of  his 
argument,  let  us  now  try  the  strength  of  his  proofs.  1.  Does 
the  phrase  ''Law  of  Moses/'  necessarily  include  the  Deca- 
logue? Is  it  not  often  used  in  Scripture  distinctively,  i.  e. 
with  special  reference  to  the  ceremonial  and  civil  code  which 
was  given  after  the  Decalogue;  and  was  distinguished  from  it 
by  three  most  significant  circumstances — neither  being  uttered 
by  the  voice  of  God,  nor  engraved  on  the  two  tables  of  stone, 
nor  laid  up  under  the  Mercy  Seat  in  the  sacred  Ark  of  the 
Covenant  ?  I  think  this  distinction  will  appear  in  the  very 
first  use  of  the  phrase:  Deut.  xxxi.  9 — 13.  (See  also  1  Kings 
ii.  3 ;  Acts  xxi.  20 — 25  ',  Heh.  x.  28.)  Now  if  this  distinctive 
use  be  found  in  any  case,  surely  it  must  be  admitted  in  this 
chapter  under  discussion.  For  who  wished  to  enforce  this 
law?  The  Judaizing  teachers — the  sticklers  for  circumcision 
(^verses  1st,  5th,  and  24th),  men  whom  Peter  describes  as  tempt- 
ing God  to  put  upon  the  Gentiles  "  a  yoke,  which  neither  we 
nor  our  fathers  were  able  to  bear."  Now  this  ''yoke"  can 
only  include  icliat  ivas  distinctive  of  Judaism.  It  cannot  in- 
clude that  Law  of  God,  which  He  has  promised  to  "put  into 
the  hearts"  of  his  people,  "  the  royal  law  of  liberty,"  that  law 
of  which  Paul  says,  "  I  delight  in  the  Law  of  God  after  the 
inward  man."  The  first  proof  of  W.  B.  T.  then  is  fallacious. 

But  2.  "Two  provisions  of  the  moral  law,"  he  says,  "are 
specified — those  against  idolatry  and  fornication.  And  is  not 
this  fact  decisive  ?"  Not  at  all.  For  they  are  not  specified 
as  parts  of  the  law  in  dispute  ;  but  only  as  "  things  necessary" 
in  the  peculiar  condition  of  Gentile  Christians  to  be  speciallij 
observed.  Even  W.  B.  T.  is  compelled  to  admit  this  ;  not 
perceiving  that  it  ruins  his  argument.  "  The  obvious  reason 
why  these  two  points  of  the  moral  law  were  at  all  referred 
to,"  he  says,  "  was,  that  they  were  the  only  ones  likely  to  be 
transgressed  by  those  just  emancipated  from  the  Roman  Pagan- 
ism. Otherwise,  they  would  no  more  have  been  noticed  than 
robhery  or  murder."  {p.  31.)  I  thank  my  friend  for  this 
7 


74  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  ten  commandments  all  abrogated !  The  Sabbath  never  "  burdensome." 

honest  confession  of  the  truth.  It  shows  that,  after  all,  his 
heart  is  sounder  than  his  logic.  For,  look  at  the  consequence 
to  his  argument.  His  argument  is — "Nothing  was  enjoined 
on  the  Gentiles  but  these  three  necessary  things,  abstinence 
from  idolatry,  from  fornication,  and  from  the  blood  of  things 
strangled.  Therefore,  the  Sabbath  was  not  enjoined  upon 
them."  Now  apply  this  argument  to  any  other  commandment 
of  the  Decalogue,  and  see  what  it  comes  to.  "  Nothing  was 
enjoined  upon  the  Gentiles  but  the  three  things  specified  in 
this  Apostolic  decree.  There/ore  all  the  ten  commandments y 
except  the  first  and  the  seventh,  are  abrogated.''  That  is  to  say, 
profaneness  towards  God,  disobedience  to  parents,  lying,  '^ rob- 
bery, and  murder,''  are  no  longer  sins  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation ! — And  this,  then,  is  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ 
has  made  us  free  !  even  that  Christ  who  said,  "  Think  not  that 
I  am  come  to  destroy  the  laAv  or  the  prophets  !"  To  what  ab- 
surd results  will  wrong  theories,  logically  pursued,  lead  intel- 
ligent men  ! 

But  3d.  The  "  Gentiles  were  never  bound  by  the  Law  of  the 
Sabbath,"  says  W.  B.  T.  Pure  assumption.  A  mistake  in  fact, 
which  I  have  already  exposed  in  part  i.  of  this  Reply,  (^p.  50.) 

But  4th.  "  The  Law  of  the  Sabbath  would  have  been  not  a 
little  burdensome  to  them,"  says  my  friend.  Another  assump- 
tion. The  Gentile  Christians  of  that  age,  as  in  this,  must  have 
esteemed  the  Sabbath  a  delight,  not  a  burden.  Cases  of  trial, 
as  of  Christian  servants  bound  to  Jewish  or  Heathen  masters, 
might  occur,  yet  these  were  exceptions  rather  of  form  than  of 
feeling ;  nor  were  such  exceptions  confined  to  the  fourth  com- 
mandment. The  rule  is  set  forth  in  prophecy  (Isai.  Ivi.  6 — 8) 
by  the  voice  of  God  himself.  "  Also  the  sons  of  the  stranger, 
that  join  themselves  to  the  Lord,  to  serve  him,  and  to  love 
the  name  of  the  Lord,  to  be  his  servants,  ever?/  one  that 
keepefh  the  Sabbath  from  polluting  it,  and  taketh  hold  of  my 
covenant ;  even  them  will  I  bring  to  my  holy  mountain,  and 
make  them  joyful  in  my  house  of  prayer,"  &c. 


MR.  brown's  second  REPLY.  75 

The  Sabbath  shown  to  be  not  "ceremonial." 

But,  says  my  friend,  in  the  fifth  place,  "  The  wliole  Law 
of  Moses  was  abrogated,  as  to  the  Gentiles,  except  in  three 
points,  neither  of  which  includes  the  Sabbath ;  therefore  it  is 
impossihie  that  the  term  can  be  restricted,  or  that  the  Law  of 
the  Sabbath  can  be  obligatory  on  Gentile  Christians.''  My 
friend's  impossibilities  are  both  purely  imaginary.  I  have 
shown  that  the  term  is  restricted,  both  by  Scripture  usage,  and 
by  the  whole  context  which  describes  the  case  ;  by  the  position 
of  the  parties  in  this  early  controversy ',  and  by  the  previous 
positive  decision  of  Christ  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  I 
have  also  shown  that,  if  the  Decalogue  were  to  be  included  in 
the  term,  as  here  used,  it  would  follow  by  necessity  from  his 
own  statement,  that  there  remains  no  moral  dbligation  on  Gen- 
tile Christians,  except  to  abstain  from  idolatry  and  fornica- 
tion :  which  is  as  absurd  in  morals,  as  it  is  contrary  to  the 
whole  tenor  of  the  New  Testament.  So  much  for  his 
arguments. 

In  vain  will  W.  B.  T.  seek  to  sustain  his  shattered  position, 
by  saying  that  under  his  "  Second  Proposition"  he  has 
proved  the  Sabbath  to  be  "  strictly  ceremonial  and  Jewish." 
That  Proposition  has  been  (I  trust  to  the  conviction  of  all) 
completely  shattered  before.  No  point,  therefore,  remains  on 
which  he  can  fall  back  and  rally  his  shattered  forces,  unless  it 
be  on  the  subsequent  facts.  But  these  will  not  help  him.  The 
churches  of  the  Gentiles  ^^  rejoiced  for  the  consolation"  of  the 
Apostolic  decree,  on  better  grounds  than  that  of  a  freedom 
from  the  Decalogue;  for  (as  I  proved  in  part  i.  of  my 
Beply)  they  did  "  keep  the  Sabbath  on  the  Lord's  Day."  My 
friend  seems  to  have  been  misled  by  a  recollection  of  Pliny's 
Epistle  to  Trajan,  as  to  their  early  morning  meetings  in  a 
time  of  severe  persecution.  But  neither  the  Pagan  Pliny,  nor 
any  Christian  writer  that  I  remember,  will  bear  him  out  in 
his  assertion  that  they  spent  the  rest  of  the  Lord's  day,  even 
then,  in  their  ordinary  work. 

Sure  I  am,  as  I  shall  now  show  clearly,  that  these  early 


OELTGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 


Clement.    Justin.    Tertullian.    Barnabas.    Diontsius.    Clement  Alex. 

Christian  writers  speak  a  very  different  language.  '^  God  hath 
required  us,"  says  Clement  of  Rome  (a.  d.  95),  ^'to  serve 
Him  in  the  appointed  times  and  seasons.^'  "  On  the  day  that 
is  called  Sunday/^  says  Justin  Martyr  (a.  d.  140),  ''  all, 
both  of  the  country  and  city,  assemble  together ;  when  we 
preach  and  pray,  and  discharge  all  the  other  usual  parts  of  di- 
vine worship."  "  On  Sunday,  we  give  ourselves  to  joy,"  says 
Tertullian  (a.  d.  200).  "  We  keep  the  eighth  day,"  says 
Barnabas  (still  earlier),  meaning  the  day  after  the  Jewish 
Sabbath,  "  with  gladness."  "  To-day  being  the  Lord's  day," 
says  DiONYSlus  of  Corinth  (a.  d.  165),  "  we  keep  it  lioly" 
And  Clement  of  Alexandria  still  more  explicitly  says  that 
"  a  true  Christian,  according  to  the  commands  of  the  Grospel, 
observes  the  Lord's  day,  by  casting  out  all  evil  thoughts,  and 
entertaining  all  good  ones ;  glorifying  the  resurrection  of  the 
Lord  on  that  day."  And  so  far  from  regarding  it  as  "burden- 
some," he  calls  it  '^  the  chief  of  days,  our  rest  indeed  !"  In 
fact,  the  only  thing  "  burdensome"  about  it  would  be  to  quote 
all  their  various  expressions  of  devout  recognition  of  the 
Christian  Sabbath. 

What,  then,  in  view  of  these  authentic  facts,  becomes  of  my 
friend's  assertion  to  the  contrary?  or  of  his  confident  conclu- 
sion that  ''  the  abrogation  of  the  Sabbath,  by  the  Council  at 
Jerusalem,  is  as  certain  and  distinct  as  that  of  circumcision  ?" 
(p.  33.)  I  am  curious  enough  to  wish  to  see  whether  he  can 
produce  such  evidence  as  the  above,  "  equally  certain  and  dis- 
tinct,'^ that  the  primitive  Gentile  Christians  observed  "circum- 
cision," or,  indeed,  any  other  part  of  the  "  burdensome"  Jew- 
ish ritual.  His  eloquent  parallel  between  them  is,  alas,  for 
him!  untrue  in  every  particular — ^^  vox,  et  pra4erea  nihil." 
Nor  can  Bishop  Warburton  help  W.  B.  T.  here,  however 
willing.  John  Bunyan  ivould  not,  if  he  could;  for  he  really 
is  on  my  ground,  as  any  one  may  see  who  reads  him  with  pro- 
per attention. 

I  have  now  done  with  the  Fifth  Proposition  of  my  eloquent 


MR.  brown's  second  REPLY.  77 

The  Epistle  to  the  Huhrews: — character  and  time  of  the  "rest." 

friend.  God  grant  that  he  may  have  done  with  it  too  !  I  re- 
serve the  examination  of  the  Sixth  to  the  next  week,  for  fear 
of  crowding  your  columns. 

J.  N.  B. 


PART  IV. 

"Whosoever  therefore  shall  break  one  of  these  least  command- 
ments, and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called  the  least  in  the  king- 
dom of  heaven ;  but  whosoever  shall  do  and  teach  them,  the  same 
shall  be  called  great  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven." — Matthew  v.  19. 


VI.  Only  one  more  Proposition  of  "W.  B.  T.  remains  to 
be  considered.  It  is  that  "  the  Epistles  uniformly  regard  the 
Sabbath  as  a  provisional  type,  fulfilled  and  superseded  by  the 
Gospel  dispensation.'' 

It  may  seem  a  waste  of  time  and  strength  to  examine  this 
last  Proposition  minutely,  after  what  has  been  said  already. 
And  happily,  it  is  unnecessary  to  follow  in  detail  my  friend's 
argument  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  as  most  of  his  re- 
marks and  reasonings  are  really  sound  and  appreciating.  I 
give  him  credit  for  a  very  careful  study  of  the  Apostle's  train 
of  thought,  and  exhaustive  method  of  argument,  on  the  pas- 
sage quoted  from  Ps.  xcv.  11.  Only  on  two  points  of  his  con- 
clusion, which  indeed  resolve  themselves  into  one,  do  I  see 
cause  to  differ  from  him.  The  first  is  as  to  the  character  of 
the  "  rest  that  remaineth  to  the  people  of  God ;"  and  the 
second  as  to  the  time  of  entering  into  it.  The  first  of  these 
he  understands  to  be  simply  a  spiritual  sabbatism ;  and  the 
second,  an  immediate,  as  well  as  complete  entrance  into  it,  by 
faith,  in  the  present  world.     A  word  on  each  of  these. 

The  first  opinion  of  W.  B.  T.  (and  partially,  not  exclusivel}^, 
of  Dr.  Gill)  rests  on  two  grounds:  1.  The  (jeneral  scope  of 
the  Epistle.  Tliis,  I  agree  with  my  friend  entirely,  '^is  the  Levi- 


78  OBLIGATION  OP  THE  SABBATH. 

Constant  reference  to  a  future  life.  A  defective  conception. 

tical  symbolism  of  the  Grospel;"  only  I  differ  with  him  altogether 
when  he  says  it  is  '^without  the  slightest  reference  to  a 
future  life/'  (^p.  36.)  On  the  contrary,  it  is  with  perpetual  refer- 
ence to  a  future  life.  Christ,  says  the  Apostle,  as  "  our  fore- 
runner hath  entered  for  us  within  the  vail  f'  he  is  seated  on 
the  right  hand  of  God  in  heave^i ;  he  reigns  there  as  King ;  he 
officiates  there  as  our  High  Priest  and  Intercessor  ]  he  speaks 
from  thence  as  our  Prophet,  in  distinction  from  Moses,  "  who 
spake  on  earth.''  Pie  receives  there,  at  last,  those  who  *' in- 
herit the  promises,"  even  those  "  who  draw  not  back  unto  per- 
dition," but  "believe  to  the  saving  of  the  soul."  There  the 
"  elders  who,  by  faith,  obtained  a  good  report,"  and  "  of  whom 
the  world  was  not  worthy,"  are  already  entered ;  and  we  who 
follow  them  are  said  to  ''  have  here  no  continuing  city,  but  to 
seek  one  which  is  to  come."  But  enough.  A  future  life,  and 
the  way,  divinely  ordained,  to  enjoy  its  blessings  forever,  are 
the  very  substance  and  soul  of  this  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews ; 
all  Eabbinic  opinions,  indorsed  by  Christian  divines,  of  the 
phrase,  "  world  to  come,"  to  the  contrary,  notwithstanding. 

And  2.  This  opinion  of  W.  B.  T.  rests  upon  an  inadequate 
conceptioyi  of  the  context.  For  the  particular  sco2:)e  of  the 
Apostle,  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  is  peculiarly 
directed  to  this  doctrine  of  a  future  life.  For  he  is  here 
exhorting  the  Hebrews  (iii.  6 — 19 ;  iv.  1 — 13)  to  beware  lest 
"  through  unbelief,"  they,  like  their  fathers  in  the  wilderness, 
fall  under  the  irrevocable  oath  of  exclusion  from  the  Rest  of 
Grod  with  Christ.  This  Rest,  of  which  God  speaks  so  solemnly 
in  Ps.  xcv.  11,  the  Apostle  proves  h^  the  time  of  its  mention 
there,  cannot  be  either  the  rest  of  the  original  Sabbath  (^Gen. 
ii.  2),  or  the  rest  of  Israel  in  Canaan  (Josh.  i.  15),  both  which 
were  in  actual  possession  of  the  persons  addressed  in  the  time 
of  David.  Therefore  it  is  a  rest  "  which  remaineth"  still  to 
be  enjoyed  by  "the  people  of  God,"  that  is,  by  believers. 

As  to  the  time  of  entering  it,  W.  B.  T.  lays  unwarrantable 
stress  upon  the  tense  of  the  verl).      "  For  irc  ivlrich  hdiere, 


MR.  brown's  second  REPLY.  79 

Undue  stress  on  the  verb.  The  Hehreivs  not  Anti-sahbatarian :  nor  Colossians. 

do  enter  into  rest."  Whereas,  the  meaning  evidently  is, 
believers  (and  they  only)  shall  inherit  it,  not  liere  but  hereafter. 
True,  Christ  now  gives  them  rest  {Matt.  xi.  28),  but  only 
^'  rest  to  the  soul,''  whereas  the  Apostle  is  speaking  of  the 
Rest  of  the  whole  man  with  God,  in  the  ^'  city  that  hath 
foundations,  whose  Builder  and  Maker  is  Grod."   (chap.  xi.  10. )* 

*'Let  us  labor,  therefore,  to  enter  into  that  rest.''  This 
exhortation,  W.  B.  T.  thinks,  refers  exclusively  to  spiritual 
rest ;  "  evidently  (he  says)  not  in  a  future  sense."  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  precisely  parallel  to  the  exhortation  (vi.  11,  12, 
19) :  "  We  desire  that  every  one  of  you  do  show  the  same 
diligence,  to  the  full  assurance  of  hope  unto  the  end ;  that  ye 
be  not  slothful,  but  followers  of  them  who  through  faith  and 
patience  inherit  the  promises." — ^^  Which  hope  we  have  as 
an  anchor  of  the  soul,  both  sure  and  steadfast,  and  which 
entereth  into  that  icithin  the  vail,  whither  the  Forerunner  hath 
for  us  entered,  even  Jesus,"  &c. 

Having  thus  shown  that  W.  B.  T.  has  mistaken  the  Apos- 
tle's scope,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  argument  he  builds  on 
this  passage  to  support  his  Sixth  Proposition  falls  to  the  ground. 
The  doctrine  that  ''the  Sabbath  was  merely  a  provisional 
type  of  the  Gospel  rest,  fulfilled  and  superseded  by  it,"  finds, 
as  I  said  at  first,  no  support  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
And  if  not  there,  where  then  ?  We  have  searched  for  it 
before  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  (ii.  16,  17),  and  it  is 
not  there.  W.  B.  T.  has  afl&rmed  that  the  "  Epistles  uniformly 
so  regard  it;"  but  a  rigid  examination,  on  philological  and 
logical  principles,  finds  no  such  doctrine  in  any  one.  And 
if  not  taught  in  the  New  Testament,  of  what  avail  is  a  dream 
of  the  Jewish  Rabbins,  or  a  happy  metaphor  of  Justin 
Martyr  in  his  dialogue  with  Trypho  the  Jew,  or  the  occa- 
sional allegorical  expositions  of  other  later  Christian  divines? 
"  What  is  the  chaff  to  the  wheat  ?  saith  the  Lord."  Even 
the  great  name  of  Calvin,  generally  the  keenest  of  interpret- 
ers, or  of  Whately,  generally  the  shrewdest  of  logicians,  will 


80  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

A  surrender  promised. 

merely  prove  that  my  friend  errs  in  illustrious  company,  not 
that  lie  does  not  err. 

My  friend  grows  truly  eloquent  and  witty  withal,  in  wind- 
ing up  his  argument,  especially  on  the  oft-cited  words, 
*' Sabbath  days"  and  "holy  days"  in  Col.  ii.  16,  17.  I  can 
admire  eloquence  and  wit,  even  when  directed  against  myself ; 
especially  when  so  evidently  the  offspring  of  a  genial  heart, 
and  when  at  the  time  it  seemed  to  him  to  have  some  foundation 
in  truth.  But  as  in  PART  ii.  of  my  Reply,  I  so  fully  answered 
the  whole  argument  built  on  these  words,  and  showed  that  his 
construction  is  at  war  with  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  Christ 
as  to  the  perpetuity  of  the  Decalogue,  it  is  unnecessary  now  to 
say  a  single  word  more.  If  I  have  not  made  "the  trifling 
discovery  of  a  Scriptural  text  half  so  explicit — half  so  unmis- 
takable," on  my  side,  "  of  either  of  the  'Six  Propositions,'  '' 
as  that  text  is  upon  his,  I  have  certainly  no  right  to  expect 
him  to  be  convinced.  But  if  I  have  fairly  met  him  at  every 
point,  with  'pertinent  text,  and  necessary  interpretation,  and 
historical  fact,  and  logical  reasoning,  I  may  perhaps  venture  to 
hope  he  will  remember  his  "j^rrmiise"  here,  to  "abandon  the 
whole  argument  untliout  reserve.'^  {p.  40.)  The  views  I  take 
of  human  nature  in  general,  even  in  that  case,  would  hardly 
lead  me  to  anticipate  such  an  unconditional  surrender,  without 
the  interference  of  a  Higher  Power,  whose  hand  is  on  the  hid- 
den places  of  the  heart. 

To  that  Higher  Power,  I  do  indeed  earnestly  look  on  behalf 
of  my  friend.  And  should  so  happy  a  result  ensue  from  this 
Discussion,  I  too  here  promise  to  the  "  Lord  of  the  Sabbath," 
that  it  shall  be  hailed  by  me  with  the  lowliest  self-abasement, 
and  with  the  warmest  gratitude.  No  sweeter  hope  could  cheer 
me  in  my  labor  of  love  than  this,  "  If  he  hear  thee,  fliou  hast 
(joined  thy  hrotherJ' 

My  friend  throws  himself  in  the  last  resort  into  Rom.  xiv. 
1,  5,  6,  as  into  a  citadel  of  impregnable  strength.  But  can- 
didly, now ;  what  is  Paul  urging  there  ?     Forbearance  with 


MR.  brown's  second  REPLY.  81 

Jx'nm.  xiv. — A  distinction  between  "meats,"  and  "daj-s." 

weak  faith — with  imperfect  knowledge — ^with  mistaken  judg- 
ment— in  true  Christians ; — who,  however  they  for  the  time 
doubt  or  differ  as  to  the  will  of  God,  still  with  conscientious 
love  do,  or  forbear  to  do,  solely  to  please  Him.  (See  verses 
1,  5,  9.)  Now  mark,  one  momentous  distinction.  As  to 
"meats,'^  tJie  Apostle  decides  the  question  clearJy,  while  urging 
forbearance  {verse  14);  whereas  in  regard  to  ^^days,^^  lie 
leaves  the  question  here  undecided,  as  one  of  a  more  compli- 
cated nature,  and  requiring  therefore  the  greater  forbearance, 
in  the  existing  relations  between  Judaism  and  Christianity. 
At  the  same  time,  he  urges  conscientious  care  in  deciding  this 
question  on  right  grounds.  ^'  Let  every  msLJihe  fully  persuaded 
in  his  own  mind.^'  {verse  5.)  He  then  forbids  all  uncharita- 
ble judgment  of  each  other's  motives  {verse  10),  and  urges  the 
utmost  caution  against  every  antinomian  tendency,  or  unohari- 
table  stretch  of  our  Christian  liberty,  lest  it  should  betray 
others  into  sin,  and  jeopard  their  salvation,  {verse  13.  See 
also  to  the  same  purpose,  wrses  15,  16;  19 — 23.)  His  con 
elusion  is,  that  '^the  strong  in  faith  ought  to  bear  the  infirmities 
of  the  weak,^^  and  not  to  please  but  deny  themselves,  after  the 
bright  example  of  the  meek  and  benevolent  Saviour,  (xv.  1 — 7.) 

Now,  if  this  be  the  Apostle's  real  meaning,  my  friend  has 
small  occasion  to  triumph  in  this  passage.  For  he  can  find  in 
it  no  condemnation  of  a  Christian  Sabbath,  express  or  implied. 
On  the  contrary,  every  tendency  to  overstrain  Christian  liberty, 
to  the  injury  of  a  brother's  soul,  is  smitten  as  with  lightning 
from  Heaven.  If  any  wish  to  see  the  awful  force  of  the  expres- 
sion, "  put  a  stumbling-block,  or  an  occasion  to  fall,  in  his 
brother's  way,"  he  may  consult  Matt,  xviii.  6 — 14 ;  Mark  ix. 
38 — 50;  Rev.  ii.  14;  and  1  John  ii.  10;  where  he  will  find 
various  examples,  and  the  most  impressive  warnings. 

Notwithstanding  my  friend  has  indulged  in  a  little  witticism 
at  my  expense  here,  I  hardly  think,  after  reading  my  remarks 
on  the  passage  in  Colossians,  in  part  ii.  of  my  Reply,  explain- 
ing the  Apostle's  stand-point,  and  illustrating  his  real  aim,  that 


82  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Christ  and  the  Apostles  to  be  followed  rather  than  great  men. 

he  will  again  charge  me,  in  any  had  sense,  with  "  an  original 
mode  of  argument."  It  is  sometimes  the  highest  merit  of  a 
mode  of  argument  that  it  is  original,  i.  e.  that  it  ascends  to  a 
higher  point  of  view ;  from  which  seeming  contradictions  dis- 
appear in  one  grand  and  triumphant  harmony  of  truth  and 
reason.  Whether  mine  has  that  merit,  I  submit  to  the  impar- 
tial.— Since  I  am  "  fully  persuaded,  in  my  own  mind"  that 
Christ,  followed  by  Peter,  and  James,  and  Paul,  and  John,  are 
on  my  side,  I  can  look  very  calmly  upon  an  occasional  slight 
disagreement  with  such  illustrious  men  as  Luther,  and  Tyn- 
DALE,  and  Gill,  and  Yalpy,  and  Coleridge,  and  Clarke. 
Indeed  if  the  question  simply  were  whether  the  Sabbath  is 
now  to  be  observed  on  Jewisli  principles,  with  the  rigidity  of 
Pharisaic  constructions,  or  the  severity  of  monkish  super- 
stitions, then  I  myself  would  adopt  almost  everything  these 
great  men  have  spoken  as  my  own.  I  plead  for  the  obligation 
of  the  Sabbath,  only  as  expounded,  settled,  and  glorified  by 
Jesus  Christ. 

On  reviewing  what  I  have  written,  I  am  pained  at  perceiv- 
ing a  certain  air  of  egotism,  which  does  not  become  a  minister 
of  Jesus.  I  know  that  something  of  this  appearance  is 
unavoidable  in  discussions  which  demand  a  free  use  of  the 
personal  pronoun.  So  far  as  it  goes  beyond  this  point  of  real 
necessity,  I  ask  forgiveness  of  God  and  man. 

I  am  happy  that  my  friend  W.  B.  T.  is  to  have  room 
allowed  him  to  speak  of  the  '^two  points"  he  desires  to  notice 
{p.  43),  and  indeed  of  any  other  points  involved. 

On  my  friend's  ''serious question"  in  his  closing  paragraph, 
I  remark  but  this  :  He  put  it,  before  he  knew  the  real 
strength  of  my  position,  and  the  utter  weakness  of  his  own 
at  every  point.  The  two  positions  are  contradictory.  They 
cannot  both  be  true,  W.  B.  T.  has  made  a  gallant  stand 
against  mj  first  brief  attack;  but  let  him  now  look  along  the 
whole  line  of  his  defence,  and  see  if  one  stone  is  left  upon 
another. 


MR.  brown's  second  REPLY.  83 

The  '•  Six  Propositioxs"  all  overthrown. 

And  now,  in  conclusion,  I  submit  it  to  him  with  equal  sin- 
cerity and  seriousness,  Have  I  not  fairly  met  and  overthrown 
every  one  of  the  "  Six  Propositions,^'  which  a  few  weeks  ago 
he  honestly  thought  were  "  undeniable,''  and  able  to  ^^chal- 
lenge refutation?"  Have  I  not  shown  by  fair  argument  and 
authentic  facts,  1,  that  there  is  a  Sabbath  as  early  as  Creation, 
and  as  perpetual  as  Christianity;  2,  that  this  Sabbath,  as  recog- 
nized in  the  Decalogue,  is  not  ceremonial  nor  Jewish,  but  moral 
and  universal ;  3,  that  Jesus  never  (much  less  studiouslt/')  violat- 
ed, but  vindicated  and  honored  it;  4,  that  the  New  Testament 
does  uniformly  encourage  its  observance,  and  condemn  its  pro- 
fanation ;  5,  that  it  was  not  abrogated,  nor  even  touched  in 
''  one  jot  or  tittle,"  by  the  Apostolic  Council  of  Jerusalem ;  and 
6,  that  it  was  not  therefore  merely  a  provisional  type,  fulfilled 
and  superseded  by  the  Gospel  ?  In  a  word,  have  I  not  proved 
that  it  was  inserted  by  our  Lord  with  the  rest  of  the  Deca- 
logue, into  the  fundamental  law  of  Christianity ;  exalted  by  a 
new  association  with  the  mightiest  of  God's  works,  the  glorious 
work  of  human  redemption ;  and  observed  by  the  Apostles  and 
primitive  Christians  as  the  "Lord's  day,"  the,"  chief  of  days," 
"  our  rest  indeed  ?"  Have  I  not  shown  that  this  view  em- 
braces, harmonizes,  and  illustrates  all  the  facts,  testimonies,  and 
representations  respecting  it,  in  Scripture  and  elsewhere,  in  a 
manner  worthy  of  God,  and  beneficial  to  mankind;  and  is 
therefore  as  much  entitled  to  universal  credence  and  respect 
as  the  Newtonian  Theory  of  gravitation  in  Physics,  and  for 
similar  reasons,  viz  :  that  it  admits  all  the  phenomena ;  assigns 
to  each  its  real  character,  relations,  and  force ;  and  solves  all 
the  problems  suggested  by  apparently  contradictory  facts?* 

*  The  Argument  for  the  present  is  closed.  I  leave  the  subject  in 
the  hands  of  my  readers  "vvith  this  little  Apologue,  suggested  by  the 
occasion,  and  illustrative  of  my  views. 

Apologue. 
TiiEioN,  the  venerable  king  of  Ourania,  had  a  daughter  named 


84  OBLIGATION  OP  THE  SABBATH. 

Discussion  too  seldom  dignified. 

It  is  to  be  lamented  that  Discussion  is  so  seldom  the  noble 
and  beautiful  thing  it  ought  to  be.  As  the  handmaid  of  Truth, 
it  should  have  only  less  than  her  queenly  dignity^  with  all  her 
captivating  attractions.  If  I  might  illustrate  my  conception  by 
a  comparison,  I  would  say,  that  Argument  should  be  like  the 
Crystal  Palace  of  London :  constructed  not  for  a  party  or 
nation,  but  for  a  world  3  of  ample  comprehension ;  of  harmo- 
nious proportions  :  of  pure  and  polished  material ;  fitly  framed, 

EusEBiA,  -whom  he  tenderly  loved.  At  a  very  early  age,  he  presented 
her  with  a  beautiful  necklace,  composed  of  ten  priceless  pearls,  fastened 
on  a  golden  chain,  each  link  of  which  was  curiously  inwrought  with 
his  own  name.  He  clasped  it  around  her  neck  with  his  own  hand,  and 
charged  her  to  preserve  it  unbroken  through  her  whole  life,  as  the 
proof  of  her  filial  love.  When  she  came  of  age,  Eusebia  formed  the 
acquaintance  of  a  gentleman  by  the  name  of  Apeithos.  One  day,  on 
examining  her  beautiful  necklace,  he  surprised  her  by  pronouncing 
positively  that  one  of  the  supposed  pearls  was  but  a  paste  imitation.  In 
her  curiosity  to  ascertain  the  fact,  or  her  indignation  at  a  supposed 
imposition,  she  broke  from  her  neck  the  golden  band  which  bound 
them  all  together;  and  instantly,  to  her  dismay,  she  beheld  all  the 
glittering  pearls  rolling  in  the  dust,  and  trampled  under  foot  by  filthy 
swine.  Apeithos  coldly  turned  away,  and  left  her  blinded  with  her 
tears,  to  collect  them  again  as  she  could.  But  in  vain  she  tried  to 
clasp  the  golden  chain  around  her  neck  as  before.  Filled  with  sorrow 
and  shame,  and  fearful  of  her  father's  just  displeasure,  she  sovight  her 
eldest  brother  Christos,  and  entreated  his  intercession.  The  gene- 
rous Prince  sympathized  in  her  afiliction,  and  proffered  his  best  offices 
in  her  behalf.  Soothed  by  his  tenderness,  and  supported  by  his  arm, 
she  hastened  to  her  father,  and  at  his  feet  confessed  her  fault,  and 
implored  his  pardon.  Her  father,  out  of  regard  to  her  generous  bro- 
ther, kindly  forgave  her,  and  pressed  them  both  to  his  bosom.  He 
then  commanded  his  Son's  name  to  be  engraved  on  the  golden  chain, 
together  with  his  own,  in  perpetual  memory  of  the  event  ;  and  as  he 
reclasped  the  golden  band  around  her  neck,  charged  her  in  future,  by 
her  filial  and  fraternal  love,  to  beware  of  a  second  delusion,  especially 
from  the  confident  tone  of  a  stranger. — (The  key  to  this  Apologue  will 
be  found  in  Matt.  v.  17—20.) 


MR.  brown's  second  REPLY.  85 

The  "Crystal  Palace"  an  appropriate  symbol. 

and  firmly  compacted  with  ligaments  of  iron,  yet  transparent 
tliroiighout,  and  luminous  with  light  from  Heaven  !  Into  such 
Argument,  supported  by  its  broad  foundations  and  solid  pil- 
lars, might  be  introduced  all  the  selectest  productions  of  earth, 
wrought  into  the  most  useful  and  elegant  forms,  arranged  in 
perfect  order,  exhibited  to  the  highest  advantage,  and  enlivened 
by  the  figures,  costumes,  and  ideas  of  the  various  tribes  which 
make  up  the  great  brotherhood  of  Man. 

Neither  my  friend  W.  B.  T.  nor  myself  claim  to  fully  realize 
this  high  ideal ;  but  even  to  recognize  it,  is  something ;  to  ap- 
proach it  practically  nearer  and  nearer,  will  be  no  small  attain- 
ment. May  we  aid  one  another  by  steady  example,  and  sound, 
because  friendly  criticism  )  jealous  of  the  honor  of  Truth,  ra- 
ther than  of  our  own  reputation ;  thankful  for  the  detection  of 
our  own  unconscious  errors,  and,  like  Milton,  writing — 
"As  ever  in  our  great  Taskmaster's  eye." 

J.  N.  B. 


THE  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 


PtEPLY  TO  "J.  N.  B." 


PART  I. 

"Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  Law  or  the  Prophets;  I 
am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  till 
heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from 
the  Law — till  all  be  fulfilled.^ I — Matthew  v.  17,  18. 

<' After  this  Jesus  knowing  that  all  things  were  now  accomplished 
.  he  said,  It  is  finished!  and  he  bowed  his  head,  and  gave 
up  the  ghost." — John  xix.  28 — 30. 

^^  Now  we  are  delivered  from  the  Law,  that  being  dead  wherem  we 
were  held  ;  that  we  should  serve  in  newness  of  spirit,  and  not  in  the 
oldness  of  the  letter," — PvOmans  vii.  6. 

"  Shall  we  sin,  because  we  are  not  under  the  Law,  but  under  grace  ? 
God  forbid !" — (Ib.  vi.  15.)  "  Do  we  then  make  void  the  Law  through 
faith?     God  forbid  !     Yea,  we  establish  the  LaAv." — Ib.  iii.  31. 


Messrs.  Editors  : — 

Were  I  disposed  to  flattery  I  miglit  reciprocate  com- 
pliments on  the  skill  of  my  friend,  and  file  an  implied  caveat 
with  the  impartial  reader  not  to  be  misled  by  the  "  lawyer- 
like subtlety"  of  his  very  "  ingenious  defence"  of  the  Sab- 
bath. But  while  fully  and  unaffectedly  recognizing  the  supe- 
rior ability  of  the  advocate,  confiding  in  the  strength  of  my 
cause,  I  shall  simply  entreat  the  considerate  to  overlook  this 
disproportion ;  to  regard  solely  the  evidences  respectively  pre- 
sented; and  to  weigh  carefully  their  relative  cogency. 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.  87 

The  Sabbath  Question,  a  Bible  one.  Instructive  "  Scriptxiral  contrasts." 

The  question  between  J.  N.  B.  and  myself  is,  as  he  has 
correctly  stated,  strictly  one  of  ^'  Christian  lihcrfi/;" — a  ques- 
tion long  since  agitated  with  "  much  disputing" — a  question 
obviously  admitting,  at  the  present  day,  but  one  appeal.  For 
the  Christian,  all  considerations  of ''ill  eifects"  or  of  "dan- 
gerous" consequences  must  be  postponed  to  the  main  inquiry 
— "  What  saith  the  Scripture?" — Disregarding,  therefore,  all 
extraneous  suggestions  in  favor  either  of  a  "  day  of  religious 
rest,"  or  of  a  life  of  religious  activity^  I  merely  remark  that, 
with  the  individual  blessings,  or  the  national  prosperity, 
attending  a  "  conscientious  observance  of  the  Sabbath,"  I 
have  at  present  no  concern.  The  point  before  us  is  its  Scrip- 
tural authority.  If  the  view  I  defend  be  unsustained  by  the 
Bible,  it  will  doubtless  be  made  manifest,  and  I  shall  cheer- 
fully acknowledge  a  neic — and  consequently  firmer  belief.  If 
the  reverse  be  the  case,  I  sincerely  hope,  in  denying  that  one 
man's  liberty  should  be  "judged  of  another  man's  conscience," 
that  I  shall  not  "  put  a  stumbling-block"  in  any  believer's 
way,  however  "weak  in  the  faith"  he  may  be  considered. 
Certainly,  I  shall  neither  presume  to  "judge"  him,  nor  to 
"  set  him  at  naught." 

I  am  reminded  by  J.  N.  B.  {p.  44)  that  "  the  good  of  old 
were  taught  of  God  to  'call  the  Sabbath  a  delight;'  "  he  will 
permit  me  to  remind  him  that  the  good  of  the  neio  dispensa- 
tion were  also  taught  of  God  to  call  the  Sabbath  "  a  shadow" 
— a  cancelled  bond — a  blotted  handwriting — "nailed  to  the 
cross."  If  it  was  a  subject  of  just  condemnation  to  them  of 
old  time  who  said:  "When  will  the  new  moon  begone,  that  we 
may  sell  corn?  and  the  Sabbath,  that  we  may  set  forth  wheat?" 
— under  the  "better  covenant"  of  Him  who  likewise  "iaught 
as  one  having  authority,"  those  "buried  with  him,"  and 
"  quickened  together  with  him,"  are  no  longer  judged  in  re- 
spect of  "the  new  moon,  or  of  the  Sabbath  days."  To  those 
adopted  as  "  heirs"  redeemed  from  pupillary  bondage,  it  is 
rather  subject  for  condemnation  to  ^^  observe  days  and  months/' 


ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 


The  day  required.  The  "  seventh  day"  to  be  determined  extraneously. 

— a  sign  of  weakness  to  "  esteem  one  day  above  another/' 
These  striking  "  Scriptural  contrasts"  are  pregnant  with  in- 
struction. But  I  must  hasten  to  the  particular  points  pre- 
sented by  my  friend's  elaborate  "  Reply." 

I.    The  Day  required  hy  the  Sahhath  law. 

In  regard  to  the  Proposition  that  "  there  is  but  one  Bible 
Sabbath,  and  that,  the  Saturday  Sabbath,"  J.  N.  B.  appears 
strangely  to  have  misconceived  my  allegation.  He  says, 
^'  W.  B.  T.,  in  his  defence,  has  ingeniously  [?]  dropped  the 
last  clause  of  this  complex  proposition,  though  it  is  the  only 
one  I  have  ever  denied."  (p.  46.)  Now,  although  it  is  true 
that  in  the  statement  of  the  proposition  I  omitted  the  word 
^^  Saturday,"  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  so  far  was  I  from  drop- 
ping it  "in  the  defence,'^  that  I  distinctly  asserted — and 
enforced  by  illustration — "  that  Saturday  is  ^  the  Sabbath 
enjoined  in  the  Decalogue,'  is  as  certain  as  human  knowledge 
can  be,  even  concerning  the  Bible  itself."  (p.  21.) 

My  friend  insists  on  a  distinction  between  "the  seventh  day 
of  the  Decalogue,  and  the  seventh  day  of  the  Jewish  week." 
(p.  59.)  And  how  shall  we  ever  ascertain  what  is  "the 
seventh  day  of  the  Decalogue  ?"  Clearly  not  by  itself!  All 
legal  interpretation  must  ultimately  be  based  on  some  assump- 
tion without  the  statute.  Now,  in  reference  to  the  day  re- 
quired, J.  N.  B.  admits  "  that  for  the  Jews  it  was  fixed  to  the 
last  day  of  our  week.  Grranted.  .  But  then  it  was  not  fixed 
by  the  Decalogue."  (p.  47.)  Truly  not!  and  I  reply  that  this 
would  be  a  simple  impossibility.  With  all  the  ingenuity  for 
which  I  give  my  friend  credit,  I  challenge  him  to  define  by 
statute  a  particular  day,  otherwise  than  the  fourth  command- 
ment does ; — namely,  by  adopting  the  universal  designation  of 
a  well-recognized  distinction.  Now  the  term  "  Sunday"  is  not 
more  precisive  in  o^ir  law,  than  is  the  term  "Jia-shibingi"  in 
that  of  the  Hebrews.  It  is  applicable  to  no  "  seventh  day" 
but  Saturday. 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.  89 

The  reclconing,  undisputed.  A  supernatural  application  not  to  be  set  aside. 

But  it  is  contended  that  "  the  connection  was  fixed  by  statute 
only  for  that  people" — the  Israelites,  (p.  59.)  Then,  most 
certainly  the  statute  itself  was  ''only  for  that  people."  As 
Whately  well  observes,  ''  the  difference  between  the  Jews 
and  the  Christians  is  not  a  difference  of  reckoning.  Our 
computation  is  the  same  as  theirs."  And  the  legal  term  is  as 
exclusive  in  its  application  now,  as  it  was  in  the  time  of  Moses. 
''  The  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath,"  says  the  Decalogue ;  and 
Saturday  is  "  ^/le  seventh  day,"  says  Grod  by  the  manna;  there- 
fore Saturday  "  is  the  Sabbath,"  says  the  Decalogue.  If  the 
seventh  day  is  the  day  "  fixed"  by  the  law,  then  beyond  all 
refuge,  is  Saturday  the  day  "fixed"  by  it.  And  my  friend  has 
admitted  that  the  day,  "if  once  ascertained,  becomes  the  ex- 
clusive object  of  the  law's  consideration." 

Concerning  the  authoritative  determination  of  the  day  (by 
a  suspension  of  the  manna),  J.  N.  B.  remarks:  "This  very  mode 
of  fixing  the  particular  day  of  the  week  by  miracle  is  a  circum- 
stance applicable  alike  to  any  change  of  dispensation."  (p.  47.) 
A^ery  true,  if  he  means  that  the  circumstance  of  a  Divine  reve- 
lation of  what  is  required  by  a  law,  is  as  applicable  to  one  dis- 
pensation as  another;  but  he  surely  does  not  design  to  inti- 
mate that  because  a  miracle  has  determined  what  the  particular 
thing  referred  to  by  the  law  really  is, — a  new  miracle  may  es- 
tablish a  different  intent  in  the  very  same  law.  This  would 
be  to  suppose  that  a  supernatural  interpretation  of  a  statute 
might  be  allowed  to  disprove  the  correctness  of  a  previous 
supernatural  interpretation !  Show  us  however  the  miracle, 
(fixing  another  ^'seventh  day"),  and  it  suflEiceth  us. 

"The  whole  authority  of  the  Sabbath  enjoined  in  the  Deca- 
logue," it  is  said,  "may  for  sufiicient  reasons  by  the  'Lord  of 
the  Sabbath'  be  transferred  to  the  Jirst  day  of  our  week." 
(p.  47.)  This  seems  to  be  a  new  phase  in  the  alogi/.  Surely 
this  Jirst  day  cannot  still  be  "the  Sabbath  enjoined  in  the  De- 
calogue," for  that  is  expressly  limited  to  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week:  and  if  "the  whole  authority"  is  transferred  to  "the  first 

8* 


90  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

A  memorial  of  Redemption,  entirely  independent  of  the  Sabbath  memorial. 

day/'  it  must  necessarily  have  been  transferred  entirely /ro??i 
^'the  seventh  day/'  or  in  other  words — -from  the  fourth  com- 
mandment; since  that  is  the  only  day  therein  specified.  But 
even  ''the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath"  has  not  power  to  make  "the 
jfirst  day  of  the  week"  obligatory  by  a  law  requiring  the  sev- 
enth day  of  the  week- — the  law  remaining  unchanged.  Omnipo- 
tence cannot  validate  a  contradiction. 

"That  a  change  of  clay  looulcl  he  dewMnded^^  says  my  friend, 
"seems  evident  from  the  nature  of  the  case.  The  original 
day  was  originally  and  appropriately  chosen  to  comlnemorate 
the  work  of  Creation.  But  the  work  of  Christ,  being  our 
Redemption  in  its  eternal  results,  must,  in  the  esteem  of  all 
Christians,  be  of  far  higher  and  sweeter  import."  (p.  51.)  This 
consideration  may  be  a  very  sufficient  reason  for  its  commemo- 
ration, but  it  is  no  reason  whatever,  either  for  superseding  the 
former  Divinely  appointed  memorial,  or  for  inferring  a  change 
in  the  application  of  the  original  command.*  As  well  might 
it  be  contended  (if  I  may  be  allowed  to  illustrate  "great  things 
by  less")  that,  as  the  22d  of  December  was  chosen  to  com- 
memorate the  landing  of  the  Pilgrims,  and  as  subsequently 
the  4th  of  July  was  distinguished  by  an  event  of  broader  and 
more  interesting  import,  therefore,  "that  a  change  of  day 
would  be  demanded,  seems  evident  from  the  nature  of  the 
case."  And  so,  after  strenuously  contending  that  the  original 
institution  was  "  founded  on  reasons  oi  perpetual  force" — that 
the  "  reasons  for  its  observance  remain  f^ — in  order  to  sustain 
this  memorial  (that  of  the  Pilgrim  arrival),  we  must  carefully 
observe  the  4th  of  July ! — for  an  observance  in  the  origincd 
way,  would  now  "be  wrong!"  And  then  to  complete  our 
humble  resemblance  to  our  orthodox  prototypes,  we  must 
zealously  maintain  that  this  observance  is  certainly  required 

*  "We  have  good  example,  and  strong  propriety,"  says  Calmet, 
"  in  behalf  of  our  observance  of  the  *  Lord's  day'  as  a  religious  fes- 
tival, though  not  as  a  Sabbath.''^ — [Bib.  Die,  art.  "  Sabbath.") 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.        91 

Pi?,  cxviii. — neither  a  Sabbath,  nor  a  worship-day  inculcated. 

by  the  identical  original  institution  which  specifies  Dec.  22 d  1 
Two  suggestions  might  be  presented  in  palliation  of  the  change; 
— first,  that  the  institution  (or  hypothetical  statute)  does  not 
itself  "fix'^  the  date  December  22d,  to  any  part  of  the  year ; 
and  secondly,  that  the  whole  authority  of  the  one  memorial 
may  for  sufficient  reasons  be  transferred  to  the  other;  and  we 
shall  still  have  an  anniversary,  if  it  be  not  the  anniversary. 

"This  is  the  day  which  the  Lord  hath  made ;  we  will 
rejoice  and  be  glad  in  it.''  {Ps.  cxviii.  24.)  On  this,  J.  N. 
B.  remarks  :  "  The  day  of  Christian  worship  is  manifestly 
made  to  correspond  to,  and  celebrate  that  glorious  event.  If 
so,  then  a  Sahhaih  is  i^redicted  under  the  gospel  dispensation.'' 
(p.  51.)  Admitting  his  postulate,  this  is  a  manifest  non  sequi- 
tur :  if  a  "day  of  Christian  worship"  were  necessarily  a 
divinely  ajypointed  Sabbath  (the  only  essential  point),  we 
should  certainly  have  many  more  than  are  set  down  in  the 
calendar;  but  a  "Sabbath"  can  only  be  established  by  an 
explicit  and  authoritative  command ,  and  it  can  only  be  "pre- 
dicted" (predetermined)  by  an  equally,  explicit  designation. 
This  text  gives  not  a  hint  of  any  "  Sabbath  day."  But  in 
the  next  place  I  totally  deny  the  premises.  I  deny  that  we 
have  any  warrant  whatever  for  assuming  that  the  passage 
refers  to  a  "day  of  Christian  worship" — to  a  weekly  or  any 
other  periodical  recurrence  of  time.  The  most  that  my  friend 
can  possibly  make  of  his  quotation,  is  that  the  Psalmist  (or 
the  faithful) — gladdened  by  the  anticipation  of  an  era  ("the 
Messiah's  exaltation") — rejoiced  in  "the  day"  not  as  the' 
commencement  of  a  week,  but  as  the  commencement  of  a  dis- 
pensation.^ 

"If,  according  to  Isaiah  (Ixv.  17,  18),  the  glory  of  the  first 
creation  is  so  to  fade  in  comparison,  as  to  cease  from  the  com- 

*  "  A  morning  then  dawned,"  says  Bishop  Horne,  ''which  is  to  be 
followed  by  no  evening ;  a  brighter  sun  arose  upon  the  world,  which  is 
to  set  no  more;  a  'Jay'  began  which  will  never  end."  [Commentary 
on  the  Psalms:  in  loco.) 


92  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Isai.  Ixv. — an  unfulfilled  prophecy :  and  Anti-sabbatarian. 

memoration  of  meHj  then  here  is  a  divine  prediction  of  a 
change  of  the  Sabbath  from  the  seventh  in  the  order,  to  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  grounded  upon  the  very  nature  of  things^ 
and  the  consequent  necessity  of  the  case."  {p.  51.)  This 
assumption  is  more  gratuitous  (if  such  be  possible)  than  even 
the  preceding.  The  creation  of  "  new  heavens  and  a  new 
earth,"  after  which  "the  former  shall  not  be  remembered," 
and  "the  voice  of  weeping  shall  be  no  more  heard,"  certainly 
has  not  yet  been  accomplished.  The  parallel  passage  in  Rev. 
xxi.  1,  would  be  just  as  pertinent  to  prove  "  a  change  of  the 
Sabbath."  Moreover,  a  respectable  portion— even  of  the 
Christian  church,  still  does  remember  "  the  seventh  day,"  to 
keep  it  holy.  But  again,  if  the  prophet's  announcement  pos- 
sibly could  be  referred  to  an  accomplished  Advent,  it  is  much 
stronger  to  prove  my  side  of  the  question  than  that  of  J.  N. 
B.  If  the  Creator's  seventh  day  rest  is  not  to  be  remembered 
longer,  then  is  the  institution  commemorating  it,  ipso  facto 
annulled.  And  so  far  from  having  any  corresponding  memo- 
rial to  replace  it,  we  arc  to  "be  glad  and  rejoice  for  ever.'' 
"And  it  shall  come  to  pass  that //-cm  one  new  moon  to  another  ^ 
and  from  one  Sahhath  to  another^  shall  all  flesh  come  to  wor- 
ship before  me,  saith  the  Lord."     {J.sai.  Ixvi.  23.)* 

To  establish  a  new  Sabbath  law  however — or  what  is  the 
same  thing,  "a  change  of  the  Sabbath" — we  require  more  de- 
cisive authority  than  the  supposed  intimations  of  an  uncertain 
prophecy,  or  presumptions  derived  "from  the  nature  of 
the  case."  I  have  demanded  direct  proof  that  such  a 
change  has  been  commanded;  I  have  asked  for  "the  chap- 
ter and  verse"  from  the  New  Covenant  recording  such 
command.  My  friend  thus  answers  the  appeal:  "That 
such  a  change  was  made  in  fact — in  other  words,  that  the  day 
appropriated  to  Christian  worship,  and  the  commemoration  of 

■^  "These  saints  shall  not  have  set  times  for  God's  worship,  but 
shall  hQ perpetually  employed  in  serving  and  praising  Plim." — Lowm. 
[^Commentary:  in  loco.) 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.  93 

The  word  "  Sabbath"  wanting  in  all  the  texts  cited. 

the  work  of  Redemption  (especially  in  the  Eucharist,  or 
'breaking  of  bread')  was  the  first  day  of  the  iceeh — that  this 
was  sanctioned  by  Christ  himself  after  his  resurrection  as  the 
'  Lord  of  the  Sabbath' — that  it  has  the  example  of  the  in- 
spired apostles  in  its  favor — that  it  was  familiarly  known 
and  acknowledged  among  all  Christians  as  '  the  Lord's  day/ 
i.  e.  the  day  by  His  authority  consecrated  to  Him — are  four 
distinct  facts,  for  which  we  can  cite  both  chapter  and  verse. 
See  John  xx.  16;  Matt,  xxviii.  9 — 11;  Luhe  xxiv.  30 — 40; 
John  XX.  19,  20;  26—29;  Acts  ii.  1—4;  xx.  6,  7;  xxi.  4, 
5;   1  Cor,  xvi.  1,  2  ;  Rev.  i.  10.'^      {p.  51.) 

Overlooking  the  immethodical  junction  of  '^  four  distinct " 
propositions  (suggestive  that  their  union  is  their  safety),  I 
remark,  that  the  full  admission  of  all  of  them  would  prove 
just  nothing  concerning  "  a  change  of  the  Sahhath."  This 
vital  word — unfortunately  for  my  friend's  side  of  the  question — 
had  to  be  omitted  from  all  his  decisive  '^  facts'^  built  on 
''chapter  and  verse !'^  1st.  The  texts  from  the  evangelists 
may  be  summarily  disposed  of.  Not  one  of  them  proves — or 
tends  to  prove — anything  to  the  point.  A  person  uninformed 
of  their  required  use  would  be  sadly  puzzled  to  surmise  what 
precept  they  most  approved.  It  is  inferred  that  because  Jesus 
appeared  to  his  disciples  on  Sunday,  this  must  be  a  divinely 
appointed  Sabbath  !  A  most  singular  method  of  superseding 
a  positive  commandment — one  would  think !  And  since 
several  "  appearances''  are  recorded,  occurring  on  different 
days,  I  suppose  we  are  to  have  several  Sabbath  days  in  the 
week,  exclusive  of  that  of  the  Decalogue.  It  is  observable 
that  all  the  appearances  above  quoted  took  place  (with  a  single 
exception)  on  one  and  the  same  day — that  of  the  resurrection  ; 
and  this  one  exception  {John  xx.  26)  most  probably  took 
place  on  Tuesday — eight  days  afterward.  The  "third''  ap- 
pearance, my  friend  himself  will  hardly  admit  to  have  been 
on  Sunday  !    {John  xxi.)     2d.  The  only  "  fact "  discoverable 


94  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  texts  all  irrelevant. 

from  the  Acts,  is  that  the  disciples  met  togetlicr  on  Sunday  3* 
and  if  this  establishes  a  Sabbath^  then  have  we  superabundant 
evidence  that  Saturday  is  the  true  Sabbath  after  all  !f  (see  Acts 
xvii.  2 ;  xviii.  4  ;  ix.  2  ;  xiii.  5,  14,  42,  44 ;  xvi.  13,  &c.  &c.) 
The  truth  is,  the  primitive  Christians  met  on  all  days  for 
social  worship,  and  for  "breaking  bread.''  {Acts  i.  14;  ii. 
42;  46,  47.)  3d.  The  utmost  we  can  glean  from  the  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians  is  that,  in  the  middle  of  the  first  century, 
Sunday  assemhUes\  were  probably  more  common — at  least  in 
Galatia  and  Corinth  (though  at  Jerusalem  such  ivas  not  the 
case — Acts  xxi.  17 — 21),  than  those  of  other  days.  But  the 
text  rather  c?isproves  a  "  Sabbath"  than  otherwise.  4th. 
The  quotation  from  Rev.  i.  teaches  nothing  ! 

Such  then  is  the  sum  of  my  friend's  Scripture  testimony 
for  a  new  Sabbath  day.  We  ask  for  a  single  explicit  command 
establishing  a  Christian  Sabbath,  and  we  are   pointed  to  a 

*  Paul  necessarily  travelled  on  Sunday,  either  to  reach — or  to  leave 
■ — Troas.  (^Acts  xx,  G,  7.)  It  is  almost  certain,  as  "the  first  day  of 
the  week"  commenced  at  sunset  on  Saturday  evening,  that  Paul's  mid- 
night sermon  was  on  Saturday  night,  preparatory  to  his  departure  on 
Sunday  morning.  (See  verse  11.)  The  time  of  holding  religious 
assemblies  among  the  primitive  Christians — as  Mosiieim  informs  us — 
*'  was  generally  in  the  evening  after  sunset,  or  in  the  morning  before 
dawn."  (Eccles.  Hist.  Book  I.  Cent.  II.  Part  II.  ch.  iv.  sec.  8.)  It 
is  scarcely  possible  that  the  apostle's  discourse  could  have  extended 
six  or  eight  hours  into  the  second  day, 

■f  "  It  is  very  possible,"  says  Jonathan  Edwards — (a  warm  Sunday 
Sabbatarian) — "that  the  apostles  themselves,  at  first,  might  not  have 
this  change  of  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  fully  revealed  to  them !"  (Ser- 
mons, ser.  xxvi.    On  the  Sabbath.)     A  remarkably  shrewd  conjecture. 

J  I  am  willing  to  give  my  friend  the  benefit  of  the  most  liberal  con- 
cession he  can  claim.  But  it  is  at  least  debatable  whether  the  expres- 
sion "lay  by  him"  (Traj'  havTuo)  does  not  simply  import  (x private  reser- 
vation, on  Saturday  evening  (the  first  of  the  week),  of  a  portion  of 
the  past  week's  earnings.  (1  Cor.  xvi.  2.)  The  language  is  striking: 
Ejcaa-Tof — ^n^flufi^fwv, — ^^ each  one  treasuring  up!"  Not  a  word  is  said 
about  the  collection  being  "upon  the  first  day  of  the  week." 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.         95 

A  "  change"  dit^proved  by  the  continued  observance  of  the  law. 

few  unconnected  historical  (!)  passages,  not  one  of  which  is  pre- 
tended to  contain  any  command,  and  which  go  to  indicate  a 
divine  precept  about  as  much  as  they  do  a  Sabbath; — a 
*'  Sabbath'^  as  much  as  they  do  a  "  New-moon  V  Well  may 
we  say,  with  Paley,  "The  opinion  that  Christ  and  his  apostles 
meant  to  retain  the  duties  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  shifting 
only  the  day  from  the  seventh  to  the  first,  seems  to  prevail 
without  sufficient  proof!"     {3Ior.  Phil.  B.  v.  ch.  7.) 

Not  only  have  we  no  shadow  of  evidence  that  Jesus  or  his 
apostles  changed  the  Sabbath  day,  but,  in  the  language  of 
Archbishop  Whately,  "  it  is  even  abundantly  plain  that  they 
made  no  such  change.  There  are  indeed  sufficiently  plain 
marks  of  the  early  Christians  having  observed  the  Lord's  day 
as  a  religious  festival ;  but  so  far  were  they  from  suhstitutiiuj 
this  for  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  that  all  of  them  who  were  Jews 
actually  continued  themselves  to  observe  the  Mosaic  Sabbath. '^ 
(Essai/  on  the  Sahhath.)  J.  N.  B.  himself  admits  (p.  68) 
that  "  indeed  it  is  evident  that  for  many  years  the  Apostles 
observed  hoth,  though  for  different  reasons  and  only  among  the 
Jews  :"*  admitting  thereby,  that  Sunday  did  not  supersede  the 
"  Sabbath."  The  apostle  James  (called  "  the  Lord's  brother," 
and  first  bishop  of  the  mother  church  at  Jerusalem),  in  advo- 
cating the  Gentile  exemption  from  the  Mosaic  law,  reminds 
the  believing  Jews  that  they  could  still,  as  of  old  time,  have 
their  law  preached  "  every  Sabbath  day"  (^Acts  xv.  21)  ]  and 
in  his  general  Epistle  to  them,  written  several  years  after- 
wards, he  makes  evident  allusion  to  their  Sabbath  assemblies; 
{ovvo.y^^yr^v) — literalhj  *'  synagogue."  (James  ii.  2.)    His  own 

*  "  The  effect  of  wliich  consideration  is  this:  that  the  Lord's  day 
did  not  succeed  in  the  place  of  the  Sabbath,  but  the  Sabbath  was 
wholly  abrogated,  and  the  Lord's  day  was  merely  of  Ecclesiastical 
institution.  It  was  not  introduced  by  virtue  of  the  fourth  command- 
ment ;  because  they,  for  almost  300  years  together,  kept  that  day 
which  was  in  the  commandment ;  but  they  did  it  also  without  any 
opinion  of  prime  obligation."  Jeremy  Taylor.  [Duct.  Dubitant.  B. 
II..  ch.  2,  rule  vi.  51.) 


96  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  "  Fathers"  conclusive  against  a  transfer.  Ignatius. 

church,  as  we  learn  from  the  early  writers,  retained  the  observ- 
ance of  the  Sabbath,  through  the  long  and  uninterrupted  suc- 
cession of  fifteen  Jewish  bishops.  (Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  lib. 
iv.  cap.  5.  Compare  also  Actsx.^i.  17 — 21,  with  Matt.  xxiv.  20.) 

J.  N.  B.  appeals  to  "  Ecclesiastical  History"  (p.  52)  to  "con- 
firm" what  he  utterly  fails  to  establish  by  the  authority  of  the 
Scriptures, — a  change  of  the  Sabbath.  Though  my  own  position 
in  the  controversy  does  not  require  it,  I  am  perfectly  willing 
to  follow  my  friend  (if  space  be  permitted)  into  this  extensive 
and  interesting  field  of  Biblical  illustration  :  but  here  as  be- 
fore we  must  have  "  chapter  and  verse ;"  we  must  have  careful 
translations,  and  not  paraphrases.  I  am  prepared  thus  to  show 
by  citations,  that  a  chain  of  "Fathers"  from  the  apostolic 
age  to  the  fifth  century — that  Ignatius  of  Antioch  (a.  d.  90) 
— Justin  Martyr  (a.  d.  140) — Iren^eus  of  Lyons  (a.  d. 
170) — Tertullian  of  Carthage  (a.  d.  200) — Clement  of 
Alexandria  (a.  d.  210) — Origen  (a.  d.  230) — Cyprian 
(a.  d.  250) — Eusebius  (a.  d.  315) — Athanasius  (a.  d. 
330)  —  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (a.  d.  370)  —  Chrysostom  (a. 
D.  395) — Jerome  (a.  d.  400) — Augustine  (a.  d.  415) — 
Theodoretus  (a.  d.  425) — and  various  other  early  writers, 
— all  "  agree  in  their  views  of  the  Lord's  day,  or  the  day  of 
Christ's  resurrection,"  as  an  institution  altogether  independent 
of  the  Decalogue,  and  entirely/  different  from  the  "  Sabbath!" 

Says  Ignatius  (a.  d.  90)  :  "If  we  still  continue  to  live  ac- 
cording to  the  Jewish  law,  we  acknowledge  that  we  have  not 
received  grace  ;'^  and  he  boasts  of  those  "  arrived  at  the  new- 
ness of  hope,  no  longer  observing  the  Sabbath,  but  living  ac- 
cording to  the  Lord's  life,*  in  which,  also,  our  life  is  sprung 

*  This  passage,  in  Archbishop  Wake's  translation  of  Ignatius,  ia 
most  unaccountably  rendered — "No  longer  observing  Sabbaths,  but 
keeping  the  Lord^s  day :'''' — though,  even  this  false  translation  would  not 
help  my  friend  a  particle,  since  the  first  day,  instead  of  being  identified 
with  the  "Sabbath,"  would  be  directly  con^rcrs^ec? with  it.  But  the 
reading  is   utterly   unwarranted.      The  original  is — lAwin   cc&ZaTi- 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.  97 

Justin  Marttr.  Iren-eus. 

up  by  him,  and  through   his  death Wherefore,  being 

made  his  disciples,  let  us  learn  to  live  a  Christian  life." 
(Fpisf.  ad  Magnes.  sect.  8,  9,  10.)  And  yet  my  friend 
claims  his  authority  in  favor  of  a  transfer  of  the  Sabbath  ! 
(p.  52.) 

Justin  (a.  d.  140),  when  reproached  by  the  Jew  Trypho 
for  "  observing  no  Sabbath,"  so  far  from  repelling  the  charge, 
by  alleging  a  change  of  the  day,  distinctly  admits  its  truth. 
^'  Do  you  not  see,"  says  he,  "  that  the  elements  are  never  idle, 
and  keep  no  Sabbath  ?  Continue  as  created  -,  for,  if  there  was 
no  need  of  circumcision  before  Abraham,  nor  of  the  observance 
of  the  Sabbath  before  Moses,  neither  now  is  there  need  of  them 
after  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  Grod."  (^Dialog,  cum  Try- 
fhone,  P.  i.)  And  yet  my  friend  claims  his  authority  !  (p.  62.) 

iRENiEUS  (a.  d.  170),  in  a  dissertation  on  "  Circumcision 
and  the  Sahhath/'  contends  that  the  latter,  like  the  former, 
"  was  given  as  '  a  sign  :' — but  there  can  be  no  ^  sign,'  "  says 
he,  "  without  a  thing  signified,  nor  without  an  application  :" 
and  he  goes  on  to  remark  that,  as  "  the  Sabbath  required  a 
constant  dedication  of  the  whole  day  to  God,"  so  we  should  be 
"  consecrated,  and  steadfastly  devoted  to  our  faith  during  our 
whole  time,  abstaining  from  all  avaricious  cares,  not  seeking, 
nor  laying  up  treasures  on  earth.  And  so  shall  be  manifested 
the  divine  repose  which  they  enjoy  who  partake  of  the  com- 
munion of  Grod.  And  as  man  was  never  justified  by  these 
ceremonies,  it  is  shown  that  Abraham  himself,  without  circum- 
cision, and  loithout  an  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  '  believed  in 
God,  and  it  was  imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness ;  and  he 

^ovrsi,  aXXa  nara  Kv^iannv  ^<wi)»  ^aivTe; :  literally,  "  no  longer  sabbatizing, 
but  living  according  to  the  Lord's  life  ;" — (which  certainly  was  not  a 
"  sabbatizing"  life.)  Nor  is  there  extant  any  version  that  will  justify 
the  other  reading.  Even  had  the  noun  l^oonv  ("  life")  been  wanting, 
the  context  would  clearly  render  the  word  'nfxtiav  ("  day")  altogether 
inapplicable.  The  antithesis  is  grammatically  in  the  verb,  and  not  in 
any  noun :  it  is  in  the  doinff,  and  it  could  not  be  in  the  daij. 
9 


98  ABROGATION  OB"  THE  SABBATH. 

A  false  quotation.  Tertullian. 

was  called  the  friend  of  God/  So  Noah,  without  circumcision, 
and  without  the  Sabbath,  pleased  God ;  and  so  Enoch ; — and 
so  all  of  those  who,  before  Moses,  were  accepted  without  any 
observance  of  the  Mosaic  law."  {Advers.  Hseres.  lib.  iv.  cap. 
30.)  In  the  next  chapter,  on  ^Ulie  Decalogue,''  Iren^us, 
after  noticing  that  natural  and  moral  duties  were  constantly 
conjoined  with  positive  and  ceremonial  precepts  in  the  Mosaic 
code,  adds  that,  '^  whatever  was  given  to  the  Jews  as  a  badge 
of  servitude,  or  whatever  was  given  them  for  a  '  sign,'  was 
erased  from  the  New  Testament,  which  was  one  of  liberty." 
{Ihid.  lib.  iv.  cap.  31.)  And  yet  my  friend  claims  Ms 
authority  !  {p.  52.)* 

Tertullian  (a.  d.  200)  strongly  contends  with  the  Jews, 
that  Christians  observe  circumcision  and  the  Sabbath  spiritu- 
ally,  as  foreshadowed  by  their  prophets ;  and  he  argues  that, 
since  God  gave  neither  circumcision  nor  the  Sahhath  to  Adam, 
— or  to  Abel — or  to  Enoch — or  to  Noah,&c.,  and  yet  "praised" 
them,  so  ''  we  also,  without  the  law  of  Moses,  can  please 
God  ....  Thus  it  follows  that,  as  the  abolition  of  carnal  cir- 
cumcision, and  the  Law,  is  proved  to  have  been  completed  in 

*  It  is  peculiarly  unfortunate  that  tlie  only  actual  quotation  from 
the  "Fathers"  attempted  by  my  friend  should  be  an  erroneous  one. 
He  quotes  Iren^us  as  saying:  "On  the  Lord's  day  we  Christians 
keep  the  Sabbath:''  and  he  asks  with  some  triumph — "Were  the  first 
Christians  Anti-sabbatarians?  So  far  from  it,  a  man  who  refused  to 
keep  the  Sabbath  on  the  Lord's  day  would  not  have  been  easily  recog- 
nized by  Iren.eus  as  a  Christian.  Let  W.  B.  T.  think  of  this."  {p. 
52.)  My  friend  has  quoted  at  second-hand  ; — he  will  excuse  me  for 
saying  that  no  such  passage  can  be  found  in  Irenjeus  ! — nor  anything 
at  all  similar  to  it.  It  is  directly  contradictory  to  his  true  sentiments! 
That  the  first  Christians  most  decidedly  were  Anti-sabbatarians,  is 
proved  by  all  the  New  Testament  writers — and  all  the  apostolic 
Fathers.  And  I  believe  no  solitary  writer  can  be  found,  in  the  first 
two  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  who  ever  calls  Sunday  the  "  Sab- 
bath ;"  or  ever  claims  the  fourth  commandment  as  authorizing  Sun- 
day observance.     "  Let  J.  N.  B.  think  of  this  /" 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.         99 


Luther.  MELANCxnoN. 


their  appointed  timeSj  so,  also,  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath 
is  proved  to  have  been  temporary  J'  ( Opera,  Tract.  ^^Advers. 
Jud."  sect.  2,  8,  4.)  And  yet  my  friend  claims  his  author- 
ity !  (p.  52.) 

Indeed,  it  is  an  indisputable  fact  that  the  early  Fathers — 
(I  believe  without  exception) — contrast  the  ^'Lord's  day'' 
with  the  Sabbath  -, — that  they  put  them  on  entirely  different 
grounds; — and  that  they  restrict  the  term  "Sabbath,"  as  the 
Bible  does,  to  "  the  seventh  day"  of  the  week.  The  true 
"  Scriptural  view  is  confirmed  in  the  clearest  manner  by  Eccle- 
siastical History."* 

"As  regards  the  Sabbath,  or  Sunday,"  says  Luther, 
"  there  is  no  necessity  for  keeping  it ;  but  if  we  do,  it  ought 
to  be  not  on  account  of  Moses's  commandment,  but  because 
nature  teaches  us  from  time  to  time  to  take  a  day  of  rest." 
(3Ilchelet's  Life,  Book  iv.  chap.  2.) 

"  There  exist, monstrous  disputations,"  says  Melancthon, 
"  touching  the  change  of  the  Sabbath,  which  have  sprung  up 
from  the  false  persuasion  that  a  worship  like  the  Levitical  was 
needful  in  the  church  ....  They  who  think  that,  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  church,  the  observation  of  the  Lord's  day  was 
appointed  instead  of  the  Sabbath,  as  if  necessary,  are  greatly 
deceived."   QAugsburg  Confession  of  Faith,  1530.) 

Says  Cranmer,  "The  Jews  were  commanded  in  the  Old 
Testament  to  keep  the    Sabbath  day,  and  they  observed   it 

*  Cave  remarks  concerning  Satvirday:  "The  word  '  sabbatum'  is 
constantly  used  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  when  speaking  of  it  as 
relates  to  Christians."  (Prim.  Chris.  P.  i.  chap,  vii.)  Baxter  says  of 
Sunday — "  The  ancient  churches  called  it  constantly  by  the  name 
'  Lord's  day,'  and  never  called  it  the  Sabbath,  but  when  they  spoke  ana- 
logically, by  allusion  to  the  Jewish  Sabbath ;  even  as  they  call  the 
holy  table  the  altar,"  &c.  (Baxter's  Work,  Vol.  iii.  "  On  the  Lord's 
day.''  chap.  7.)  It  was  not  till  erroneous  views  of  the  day  of  Christ- 
ian worship  began  to  be  entertained,  that  it  was  ever  supposed  to  "  ab- 
sorb into  itself  the  authority  of  the  original  law" — the  fourth  com- 
mandment, (p.  52.) 


100  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Tyndale.  Calvin.  Grotius. 

every  seventh  day,  called  the  Sabbat  or  Satterday.  But  we 
Christian  men,  in  the  New  Testament,  are  not  bound  to  such 
commandments  of  Moses's  law,  concerning  differences  of  times, 
days,  and  meats,  but  have  liberty  and  freedom  to  use  other 
days  for  our  Sabbath  days,  therein  to  hear  the  word  of  God, 
and  keep  an  holy  rest.  And  therefore,  that  the  Christian 
liberty  may  be  kept  and  maintained,  we  now  keep  no  more 
the  Sabbath  or  Saturday,  as  the  Jews  do,  but  observe  the  Sun- 
day and  certain  other  days  as  the  magistrates  do  judge  it  con- 
venient, whom,  in  this  thing,  we  ought  to  obey/^  {Caiechis- 
mus.      The  Co^nmandments.) 

"As  for  the  Saboth,''  says  Tyndale,  the  translator  and 
martyr,  "  we  be  lordes  over  the  Saboth,  and  may  yet  chaunge 
it  into  the  Monday  or  any  other  day,  as  we  see  neede,  or  we 
may  make  two  every  weeke,  if  it  were  expedient,  and  one  not 
enough  to  teach  the  people.  Neither  was  there  any  cause  to 
chaunge  from  the  Saterday,  than  to  put  difference  betwene  us 
and  the  Jewes,  and  least  we  should  become  servantes  unto 
the  day  after  their  superstition.  Neither  needed  we  any 
holy-day  at  all,  if  the  people  myght  be  taught  without  it." 
(^Tyndale  s  Works.  Ansioer  to  Sir  Thomas  Moreh  Dialogue. 
— Book  i.  chap.  25.) 

Calvin,  after  his  able  exposition  of  the  true  import  of  the 
Sabbath  law,  adds  :  "  Thus  vanish  all  the  dreams  of  false  pro- 
phets who,  in  past  ages,  have  infested  the  people  with  a  Jew- 
ish notion,  affirming  that  nothing  but  the  ceremonial  part  of 
this  commandment  (which,  according  to  them,  is  the  appoint- 
ment of  ^  the  seventh  day')  has  been  abrogated,  but  that  the 
moral  part  of  it — that  is,  the  observance  of  one  day  in  seven 
— still  remains  V^  {Instit.  Lib.  ii.  cap.  viii.) 

The  learned  GrROTius,  commenting  on  the  fourth  command- 
ment, after  referring  to  the  sentiments  of  the  Fathers,  and  the 
enactments  of  Constantino,  concludes :  "  These  things  refute 
those  who  suppose  that  the  first  day  of  the  week  (that  is  the 
Lord's  daj">  was  substituted  in  place  of  the  Sabbath,  for  no 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.  101 

MiLTOx.  Neander.  Whatelt. 

mention  is  ever  made  of  sueli  a  thing,  either  by  Christ,  or  the 
Apostles.  And  when  the  Apostle  Paul  says,  Christians  are 
not  to  be  condemned  on  account  of  Sabbaths,  &c.  (6W.  ii.), 
he  shows  that  they  were  entirely  free  from  that  law;  which 
liberty  would  be  of  no  effect,  if  the  law  remaining — the  day 
merely  were  changed.  The  day  of  the  Lord's  resurrection  was 
not  observed  by  Christians,  from  any  precept  of  God,  or  of  the 
Apostles,  but  by  voluntary  agreement  of  the  liberty  which  had 
been  given  them.'^  {Annotations  on  the  Old  Test.,  Exod.  xx.) 

Milton  strongly  argues  :  "  The  law  of  the  Sabbath  being 
thus  repealed,  that  no  particular  day  of  worship  has  been  ap- 
pointed in  its  place  is  evident  from  the  Apostle  in  Romans 
xiv.  5."     (^Christian  Doctrine,  Book  ii.  chap.  7.) 

Neander  remarks:  "The  festival  of  Sunday  was  always 
only  a  human  ordinance,  and  it  was  far  from  the  intention  of 
the  x\postles  to  establish  a  divine  command  in  this  respect,  far 
from  them  and  from  the  early  apostolic  church,  to  transfer  the 
laws  of  the  Sabbath  to  Sunday."  (^Hist.  of  Christian  Churchy 
sec.  iii.) 

In  fine,  as  Whately  justly  contends,  '^  If  the  precepts  rela- 
tive to  the  ancient  Sabbath  are  acknowledged  to  remain  in 
force,  then  the  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  instead 
of  'the  seventh,'  becomes  an  unwarrantable  presumption.'' 
{Essay  on  the  Sahhath.) 

But  I  have  already  considerably  exceeded  my  appointed 
limits;  and  am  compelled  to  pause.  In  justice  to  myself,  I 
must  notice  an  intimation  of  J.  N.  B. — that  I  may  have  made 
a  use  "of  the  unguarded  language  of  others — they  never  de- 
signed," (p.  56.)  Painful  as  such  a  conviction  would  be,  I 
should  certainly  be  thankful  to  my  friend  for  its  frank  indica- 
tion. If  through  prejudice,  or  inadvertence,  I  have  given  an 
unfair  coloring  to  authority,  I  would  much  rather  be  corrected, 
and  retract  a  mistaken  application,  than  continue  in  error,  or 
labor  under  an  intangible  imjmtation. 

W.  B.  T. 


102  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 


The  "  interpreter"  necessarily  a  "  logician."  Antiquity  no  proof  of  "  morality." 


PART  II. 

"Behold,  I  will  rain  bread  from  heaven  ....  Six  days  ye  shall 
gather  it ;  but  on  the  seventh  day,  which  is  the  Sabbath,  in  it  there 
shall  be  none." — Exodus  xvi.  4,  26. 

"  And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  I  am  the  bread  of  life :  he  that  cometh 
to  me  shall  never  hunger ;  and  he  that  believeth  on  me  shall  never 
thirst." — John  vi.  35. 

"Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will 
give  you  rest!" — Matthew  xi.  28. 


II.  The  Ceremonial  character  of  the  Sahhath. 
If  this  institution  be  a  7noral  one,  it  certainly  is,  as  J.  N.  B. 
maintains — of  permanent  and  universal  obligation.  It  is  not 
surprising,  therefore,  that  he  has  labored  zealously  upon  this 
point.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  even  sl  positive  institution  (as  I 
hope  to  prove  it),  it  mai/  be  still  obligatory ;  so  that  my  own 
work  is  not  accomplished  by  establishing  this  "  Second  Propo- 
sition.'' 

A  very  unnecessary  antithesis  is  made  by  my  friend,  be- 
tween the  function  of  '^  the  interpreter''  and  that  of  "  the  logi- 
cian.^' (p.  47.)  I  answer  that  the  relevancy  of  construction 
is  "  the  proper  work"  of  "a  sober  logician,"  and  that  he  alone 
can  be  a  just  ^interpreter." 

The  first  efi'ort  of  J.  N.  B.,  in  his  Reply,  is  to  strengthen  his 
previous  affirmation  that  the  Sabbath  was  instituted  at  the 
Creation ;  and  here  I  must  remind  him  that,  even  if  this  could 
be  shown,  it  would  prove  nothing  as  to  its  moral  character. 
This  depends  by  very  definition — not  on  the  nature  of  the 
Giver,  nor  on  the  date  when  given, — but  on  our  own  constitution, 
and  our  own  reasoning  processes.  The  inference  was  therefore 
rather  hasty,  that  a  proof  of  the  antiquity  of  the  Sabbath  law 
'demolished  this  Second  Proposition,  and  with   it  all  the 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.        103 

Purport  of  the  word  "  sanctify." 

rest.''  (p.  55.)*  A  "positive"  law  teas  given  to  Adam  {Gen. 
ii.  17) ;  and  that  law  which  was  merely  "  a  shadow  of  good 
things  to  come,  and  not  the  very  image  of  the  things"  {Ileb. 
X.  1),  7ni(/7it  also  have  been  given  to  him  as  readily  as  to  Mo- 
ses ;  and  still  have  been  no  less  provisional.f  He  who  com- 
manded, might,  if  He  saw  fit,  at  any  time  repeal  an  ordinance 
— even  though  it  ivere  "  from  the  beginning." 

^'God  blessed  the  seventh  day  and  sanctified  it."  {Gen.  ii. 
3.)  "  The  word  '  sanctify,'  "  says  J.  N.  B.  {p.  48),  "  is  used 
in  the  sense  of  setting  apart  to  the  special  service  of  God  by 
divine  authority.^'X  He  appears  to  have  been  misled  by  our 
inexact  version.  On  the  contrary,  I  assert — and  fear  no  con- 
tradiction from  the  learned — that  the  word  B'np  (qadash)  here 
used  and  rendered  "  sanctified,"  never  has  intrinsically  such 
a  meaning.  It  radically  signifies — "to  appoint" — "to  set 
apart" — "  to  devote."  Its  sanctity  can  only  be  inferred  from 
the  agent  or  the  object.  Things  and  persons  devoted  or  set 
apart  to  the  most  infamous  purposes  are  correctly  described 

*  "These  Sabbatarians  do  not  consider  that  it  is  not  the  tme  when 
a  command  was  given,  nor  even  the  author  who  gave  it,  that  discovers 
the  class  to  which  it  belongs,  but  its  nature  as  discoverable  by  hu- 
man reason."     Bishop  Warbueton.  (Div.  Legat.  Book  iv.  sec.  6,  note 

"KRKE.") 

f  J.  N.  B.  thinks  the  conclusion  irresistible,  "■  that  if  the  law  of  the 
Sabbath  was  given  to  our  first  parents,  it  was  given  to  all  their  pos- 
terity." {p.  49.)  Will  he  be  willing  to  admit  the  equally  irresistible 
sequence,  "that  if  the  law  of  sacrifices  was  given  to  our  first  parents 
it  was  given  to  all  their  posterity?" 

X  "Doubtless  he  hallowed  it  as  touching  himself,"  says  Milton, 
"for  <on  the  seventh  day  he  rested,  and  was  refreshed'  (JSxod.  xxxi. 
17) :  but  not  as  touching  us,  unless  he  had  added  an  express  command- 
ment to  that  effect ;  for  it  is  by  the  precepts,  not  by  the  example  even  of 
God  himself,  that  we  are  bound."    (Christian  Doctrine,  Book  ii.  ch.  7.) 

"This  text,"  says  Archbishop  Bramhall,  "  only  tells  us  what  God 
did  Himself,  not  what  He  commanded  ?<s  to  do ;  God  may  do  one  thing 
Himself,  and  yet  command  us  to  do  the  contrary."  (Discourse  on  the 
Sabbath.) 


104  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  word  "  bless"  very  indefinite.  Gen.  ii.  the  reverse  of  proleptic. 

by  this  word.*  If  we  turn  to  Jerem.  xvii.  22,  we  shall  find 
the  true  purport  and  application  of  the  word  in  this  connection. 
"  Neither  do  ye  any  work,  but  DnLyip  [jiidasl  1(6111] — set  apart 
the  Sabbath  day," — separate  it  from  labor.  Nothing  can  be 
more  obvious,  than  that  these  two  clauses — the  prohibitory  and 
the  mandatory^  are  just  commensurate  with  each  other — that 
the  latter  phrase  enjoins  affirmatively^  exactlj'  what  the  former 
one  does  negatively — and  no  more.  ^^  Separate  ye  the  Sab- 
bath day"  from  other  days,  by  ^^not  doing  any  worJc^'  upon 
it.  And  this  is  all  the  word  indicates  in  Gen.  ii.  3,  or  else- 
where. 

The  word  '\'^2  (haraUi) — to  ^'  bless" — is  scarcely  more  de- 
terminate in  its  significance,  or  more  available  to  my  friend's 
theory. f  It  is  applied  to  the  newly-created  man  {Gen.  i.  28), 
as  properly  as  to  the  period  of  repose  ; — to  the  meanest  reptile 
( Ge7i.  i.'  22),  as  expressively  as  to  the  viceroy,  man.  In  the 
book  of  Job,  the  same  word  is  more  than  once  translated  to 
^'  curse."  (i.  5, 11 ;  ii.  5,  9.)  In  1  Kings  xxi.  10,  it  is  rendered 
^'  blaspheme."  Its  noun  1~i3  (hereJdi)  signifies  the  "  knee." 
— My  friend's  etymological  argument  is  therefore  worthless. 

J.  N.  B.  gives  four  reasons  why  Gen.  ii.  3  is  not  "  Sipro- 
lepsis  or  anticipation."  (p.  48.)  I  agree  with  him.  I  hold 
that  the  passage  is  just  the  reverse  of  ^  prolepsis.  It  is  not 
contemporary  history  :  it  is  twenty-five  centuries  posterior  to  its 
subject;  it  was  evidently  written  after  the  exodus  from  Egypt.  J 

*  The  noun  occurs  in  Ge^i.  xxxviii,  21,  in  such  an  application  ;  and 
in  Deut.  xxiii.  17,  we  have  it  in  both  its  masculine  sa\^  feminine  forms; 
— "  qadesh,"  and  ^'qideshah."  The  verb  occurs  in  Numh.  xi.  18; 
<' Prejya?-c  yourselves,"  where  it  partakes  of  the  nature  of  a  threat: 
(see  verse2Q:)  and  JbsA.  xx,  7:  "They  a/'joom^ecZ"  certain  cities,  where 
evidently  nothing  sacred  is  intended.  In  Isaiah  Ixvi.  17,  the  word  is 
applied  to  violators  of  the  law,  &c.  &c. 

f  "  God  blessed  it,  that  is,  pronounced  it  an  happy  day,  all  his  works 
being  finished,"  &c.  Gill.  [Body  of  Divinity :  vol.  iii.  Book  iii.  chap. 
8.) 

X  "  The  most  probable  supposition  is  that  Moses,  who  seems  to  have 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.  105 

The  reason  of  the  law  aFsigned ;  not  its  date. 

Of  the  many  similar  internal  evidences  of  this,  but  one  shall 
be  cited :  ''By  my  name,  Jehovah  [mrr]  was  I  not  known 
to  them,''  (the  patriarchs ;)  Exod.  vi.  3  : — the  root  of  which 
(rrnx — ehyeh,  I  am)  is  given  in  Exod.  iii.  14,  in  direct  an- 
swer to  the  question,  "ichat  is  his  name?^'  Is  any  one  fanci- 
ful enough  to  infer,  because  the  word  mn"'  occurs  in  Gen.  xv. 
7,  and  2,  that  the  "  name"  was  known  to  Abram? — or  because 
the  same  word  occurs  in  Gen.  iv.  26,  that  the  "  name"  was 
first  used  by  Adam's  grandson? — or  because  the  "name"  is 
found  in  Gen.  ii.  4,  5,  7,  that  the  Hebrew  word  niH'  is  even 
older  than  man  ?  "  Spirit"  away  the  letter  of  Exodus  vi.  3, 
if  you  can ! 

Now,  just  as  the  historian  used  familiar  though  recent 
"names"  in  describing  long  antecedent  events,  so  evidently 
the  passage  in  Gen.  ii.  3,  is  simply  a  parenthesis  penned  after 
the  Sabbath  law.  It  does  not  say  (as  J.  N.  B.  seems  to  im- 
ply) that  God  "sanctified"  the  seventh  day  at  that  time,  but 
merely  he  sanctified  it /or  that  reason — "because  that  in  it 
he  had  rested."*  Its  sole  object  appears  to  have  been  to  fix 
the  Jewish  attention  on  the  sanction  of  the  particular  time 
selected  as  a  Sabbath  ;f  a  sanction  that  for  us  has  no  signifi- 

written  the  book  of  Genesis  much  later  than  the  promulgation  of  the 
Law,  inserted  this  sentence  from  the  fourth  commandment,  into  what 
appeared  a  suitable  place  for  it ;  where  an  opportunity  was  afforded 
for  reminding  the  Israelites,  by  a  natural  and  easy  transition,  of  the 
reason  assigned  by  God,  many  ages  after  the  event  itself,  for  his  com- 
mand with  regard  to  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  by  the  covenanted 
people."     Milton.   (Christ.  Doctrine,  B.  i.  ch.  10.) 

^  "  The  Sabbatic  rest,"  says  Dr.  Paley,  "being  a  duty  which  results 
from  the  ordination  and  authority  of  a  positive  law,  the  reason  can  be 
alleged  no  further  than  as  it  explains  the  design  of  the  legislator ;  and 
if  it  appear  to  be  recited  with  an  intentional  application  to  one  part  of 
the  law,  it  explains  his  design  upon  no  other;  if  it  be  mentioned 
merely  to  account  for  the  choice  of  the  day,  it  does  not  explain  his  de- 
sign as  to  the  extent  of  the  obligation."  {Mor.  Phil.  B.  v.  ch.  7.) 

f  "The  Lord's  resting  on  the  seventh  day  from  his  works  of  crea- 


106  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Adam's  rest  by  "communion,"  not  a  Sabbath. 

cance,  as  J.  N.  B,  has  well  remarked.  (^Isaiah  Ixv.  17. — p. 
51.) 

My  friend  has  inferred  (by  no  very  sober  logic)  that  Adam 
rested  "the  first  day  after  his  own  creation;"*  and  to  my  very 
pertinent  inquiry — ^^  from  what  f' — he  replies:  "  It  had  better 
become  him  had  he  risen  upward  in  thought  to  the  sublime 
repose  of  the  Creator  over  his  finished  work,  and  remembered 
that  Man  was  then  in  perfect  communion  of  spirit  with  his 
God!"  (p.  49.)  So  that  it  appears  Adam  did  not  observe  a 
human  Sabbath  after  all  !  We  are  to  rise  upward  in  thought 
to  the  sublime  termination  of  creation,  and  remember  that 
Adam  by  communion  of  spirit  rested  from — creation!  And 
as  he  of  course  enjoyed  this  sympathetic  repose  equally  on  the 
next  day,  and  so  on  the  third,  and  fourth, — this  ^^  first  Sabbath 
kept  by  man,"  must  have  been  a  much  longer  one  than  that 
prescribed  by  the  Decalogue : — indeed  it  has  not  terminated 
yet  !  for  though  the  ^^  Father  worketh  hitherto,"  that  "sub- 
lime repose  of  the  Creator''  never  yet  has  been  broken  !  My 
friend's  hypothesis  does  not  avail  him  in  the  present  examina- 
tion. 

tion,"  says  Dr.  Gill,  "is  used  as  an  argument  to  enforce  the  keeping 
of  the  seventh-day  Sabbath,  now  enjoined  ;  but  not  as  a  reason  of  the 
institution  of  it."  [Body  of  Divin.  vol.  3.  B.  iii.  ch.  8.)  In  his  Com- 
mentary on  Gen.  ii.  3,  he  remarks:  "  These  words  may  be  read  in  a 
parenthesis,  as  containing  an  account  of  a  fact  that  was  done,  not  at 
the  beginning  of  the  world,  and  on  the  first  seventh  day  of  it,  but  of 
what  had  been  done  in  the  times  of  Moses,  who  wrote  this  after  the 
giving  of  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  ....  He  takes  this  opportunity  here 
to  insert  it,  and  very  pertinently,  seeing  the  reason  why  God  then,  in 
the  time  of  Moses,  blessed  the  Sabbath  day,  and  hallowed  it,  was  be- 
cause he  had  rested  on  that  day  from  all  his  works.  {Exod.  xx.  11.) 
And  the  same  reason  is  given  here,  taken  plainly  out  of  that  law  which 
he  had  delivered  to  them."  [Com.  in  loco.) 

*  "Being  Adam's  first  day,  it  could  not,  with  any  propriety,  be 
called  a  rest  from  labor  to  him,  when,  as  yet,  he  had  not  labored  at  all ; 
such  a  Sabbath  was  not  suitable  to  him  in  a  state  of  innocence."  Gill. 
{Body  of  Div.  vol.  iii.  B.  iii.  ch.  8.) 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.        107 

No  hint  of  a  Sabbath,  till  after  the  Exodus. 

The  word  "  Sabbath''  does  not  once  occur  in  Genesis.  The 
earliest  intimation  of  a  Sabbath  day  we  can  discover  in  the 
Bible  is  in  Exodus  xvi.  5.  It  is  in  this  chapter  {verse  23)  we 
find  the  fii'st  recorded  Sabbath  laio.  "  In  vain  shall  we  search 
for  even  a  hint  that  during  the  twenty-five  hundred  years  pre- 
vious, man  ever  did  keep,  or  ever  was  required  to  keep  a 
Sabbath."* 

But,  says  J.  JST.  B.,  in  reply  to  ^Hhis  bold  but  unfortunate 
assertion,"  (p.  50,)  "  the  division  of  time  into  '  weeks,'  or 
'seven  days'  is  repeatedly  mentioned"  in  Genesis.     He  has 

*  SaysBuNYAN:  "As  to  the  imposing  of  a  seventh-day  Sabbath 
upon  man,  from  Adam  to  Moses,  of  that  "we  find  nothing  in  holy  writ; 
either  from  precept  or  example."     {Treat,  on  Sabbath,  q.  ii.) 

"There  is  no  mention  of  a  Sabbath,"  says  Gill,  "before  the  de- 
scent of  the  manna  in  the  wilderness  of  >S'm."  [Bod.  of  Divin.  vol. 
3,  B.  iii.  ch.  8.) 

In  Paley's  opinion,  "The  transaction  in  the  -wilderness  was  the 
first  actual  institution  of  the  Sabbath.  For,  if  the  Sabbath  had  been 
instituted  at  the  time  of  the  creation,  it  appears  unaccountable  that 
no  mention  of  it — no  occasion  of  even  the  obscurest  allusion  to  it, 
should  occur."     {3for.  Phil.  B.  v.  ch.  7.) 

As  Whately  excellently  argues:  "The  whole  question,  indeed, 
respecting  the  patriarchal  laws  and  observances,  is  one  which  does  not 
directly  concern  Christians.  For  we  may  be  sure  that  any  law  by 
which  certain  persons  are  to  be  bound  will  be  made  known  to  those 
persons  (except  through  some  error  or  negligence,  such  as  one  may 
often  find  indeed  in  human  legislation,  but  which  it  would  be  absurd 
and  impious  to  attribute  to  the  Deity),  not  as  a  matter  of  probable 
conjecture,  but  with  certainty  and  precision.  The  very  purpose  of  a 
law  is  to  lay  down  accurately,  and  determine  what  might  have  been 
before  dubious  or  indifferent,  so  as  to  leave  no  room  for  hesitation  as 
to  our  conduct  in  that  particular.  To  speak,  therefore,  of  a  probable 
law  (in  reference  to  those  for  whom  that  law  is  designed)  seems  no 
other  than  a  contradiction  in  terms.  It  is  to  speak  of  an  indetermi- 
nate determination ;  of  an  undecisive  decision ;  of  the  removal  of 
doubt  by  something  that  is  itself  doubtful." — [Essaijs,  ^x.,  No.  v. 
note  A.  On  the  Sabbath.) 


108  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  "  week"  wholly  independent  of  the  Sabbath. 

here  confounded  two  things  not  only  different  in  their  origin, 
but  entirely  independent  of  each  other,  as  a  very  brief  considera- 
tion will  illustrate.  Time  is  necessarily  measured  by  planetary 
phenomena :  as  is  observed  in  days — months — years — with  their 
conventional  subdivisions;  (such  as  the  four  seasons  of  the 
year — the  four  watches  of  the  night — or  the  four  quarterings  of 
the  lunation,  or  month.)  Indeed  the  interval  from  new  to 
full  moon  (fourteen  days)  is  almost  as  striking  as  that  from 
sunrise  to  sunset.  But  while  the  "month"  itself  is  an  absolute- 
ly universal  measure  of  time,  nations  of  different  origins  have 
made  different  suhdivisions  of  the  "new  moon.'^*  Thus,  the 
Oriental  nations  generally,  adopted  the  most  natural  division  of 
it  into  quarterings  (oY  weeks  of  seven  days);  the  ancient  G-reeks 
divided  it  into  thirds  (dechemera  of  ten  days),  which  was  some- 
what modified  by  the  Romans;  the  Chinese,  into  sixths  (of  five 
days)  ;  the  aborigines  of  America,  into  the  same.  The  instruct- 
ive fact  is,  that  the  oriental  week  (of  seven  days)  is  unknoivn 
and  untraced,  where  the  division  of  the  crescent  and  waning 
moon  (each  into  two  parts)  has  not  formed  the  basis  of  com- 
putation !f     Now  the  week  was  evidently  familiar  to  the  Pa- 

*  "It  is  plainly  to  be  gathered  from  many  evidences,"  says  the 
learned  Spencer,  "that  the  nations  of  the  earth  observed  the  new- 
moon  as  a  sacred  festival  long  before  the  time  of  Moses."  [De  Leg. 
Heb.  Lib.  iii.  Dissert,  iv.  cap.  1,  sect.  1.)  It  is  worthy  of  remark, 
that  while  the  Jewish  nation  have  unanimously  asserted  the  Ifosaic 
introduction  of  the  Sabbath,  they  have  as  unanimously  assigned  to  the 
festival  of  the  new  moon  a  long  antecedent,  and  sometimes  even  a 
Noachic  origin.  In  perfect  conformity,  too,  with  this  belief,  we  ob- 
serve that  while  the  Scriptures  ordain  and  enforce  the  Sabbath  with  a 
particularity  and  a  frequency  altogether  unparalleled — the  new-moon 
is  never  expressly  established,  but  always  alluded  to  as  a  well-known 
festival.  [Numb.  x.  10 ;  xxviii.  11  ;  2  Chron.  ii.  4 ;  Ezra,  iii.  5  ;  &c.) 
And  to  complete  the  demonstration,  while  the  most  ancient  heathen 
poets  are  absolutely  silent  on  the  subject  of  a  "  Sabbath,"  they  fre- 
quently speak  of  the  "new-moon"  celebration. 

f  Hence  the  frequency  with  which  "New-moons"  and  "  Sabbaths" 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.  109 

The  Sabbath  assodated  with  the  week  by  arbitrary  enactment. 

triarchs  (^Gen.  xxix.  27,  28;  Joh  ii.  13),  and  the  Egyptians 
(  Gen.  1.  10),  as  well  as  the  idolatrous  Philistines  (see  Judges 
xiv.  12) ;  but  so  far  from  sustaining  a  "  Sabbath,"  this 
very  evidence  sufficiently  proves  that  no  day  of  the  ^^  seven'' 
was  more  holy  than  another.  A  Sabbath  no  more  follows  from 
an  established  quarter-month,  than  it  does  from  an  established 
quarter-year.  It  is  dependent  for  its  existence  on  positive 
enactment;  and  may  be  connected  with  any  period,  at  the  op- 
tion of  the  lawgiver.  {Levit.  xxiii.)  ^^  Positive  precepts,'^ 
says  Jeremy  Taylor,  "  are  those  which  depend  upon  the  mere 
will  of  the  lawgiver."      {Duct.  Bub.  B.  ii.  ch.  iii.  18.) 

In  the  first  announcement  of  an  intended  Sabbath-day  for 
the  Israelites  [Exod.  xvi.  5),  the  preparatory  direction  is 
carefully  given  that  "on  the  sixth  day  [of  an  estahlished  week 

are  associated  together.  (See  2  Kings  iv.  23  ;  1  Chron.  xxiii.  31  ;  2 
Chron.  ii.  4,  viii.  13,  xxxi.  3  ;  Neh.  x.  33  ;  Isai.  i.  13,  Ixvi.  23;  Ezek. 
xlv.  17,  xlvi.  1,  3  ;  Hosea  ii,  11  ;  Amos  viii.  5 ;    Col.  ii.  16.) 

In  an  essay  on  the  subject  of  "  Septenary  Institutions"  (published 
in  the  Westminster  Review,  Oct.  1850),  characterized  by  considerable 
historical  and  philological  research,  the  writer,  after  showing  that  the 
hebdomadal  period  had  clearly  an  astronomical,  and  not  (as  is  gene- 
rally supposed)  a  theologic  derivation,  refers  its  original  institution  to 
India,  as  "  on  the  whole,  better  established  than  any  other  hypothesis ; " 
and  gives  it  as  the  result  of  the  most  diligent  investigation,  that  no 
trace  whatever  of  the  "weeA;"  is  to  be  found  among  the  Greeks,  the 
Romans,  the  Chinese,  &c.,  or  any  of  the  northern  races  of  Europe 
and  Asia.  "  Throughout  the  whole  of  North  and  South  America, 
there  are  no  traces  of  any  analogous  septenary  observances  among 

the  aboriginal  inhabitants Passing  from  America  to 

the  numerous  groups  of  i-slands  in  the  Pacific,  comprised  in  the  term 
Polynesia,  we  still  search  in  vain  among  their  aboriginal  inhabitants 
for  septenary  institutions.  Everywhere  has  been  found  a  calendar  of 
months,  commencing  with  the  first  visible  'new-moon,' but  no:i"A<?re  the 
Hindoo  and  modern  European  week  of  seven  days."  In  short,  "  when 
we  pass  the  Himalayan  range,  or  in  proportion  as  we  recede  in  any 
direction  from  India  and  Egypt,  and  the  countries  lyuig  between  them, 
u-e  lose  all  traces  of  Sabbaths !"     (  West.  Rev.  No.  c\i.  Art.  8.) 

10 


110  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  first  institution  of  the  Sabbath :         Confirmed  by  Scripture  declarations. 

— doubtless]  they  shall  prepare  that  which  they  bring  in,  and 
it  shall  be  twice  as  much  as  they  gather  daily."  When  this 
was  accordingly  done,  the  "  rulers"  or  subordinate  captains, 
unacquainted  with  the  regulation,  evidently  considered  this  a 
violation  of  the  previous  injunction:  ^'Let  no  man  leave  of  it 
till  morning  -/'  {v.  19,  20  ;)  "  and  all  the  rulers  of  the  congre- 
gation came  and  told  Moses;"  (v.  22;)  when  they  were  in- 
formed that  it  was  according  to  the  Lord's  command — ''  To- 
morroic  is  the  rest  of  the  holy  Sabbath  unto  the  Lord  :  bake 
that  which  ye  will  bake — to-day.^'  (y.  23.)  On  the  seventh 
day,  Moses  again  formally  announced:  ^^ To-day  h  2^  Sabbath 
unto  the  Lord."  (v.  25.)  Notwithstanding  which,  "  there 
went  out  some  of  the  people  on  the  seventh  day  for  to  gather, 
and  they  found  none."  [v.  27.)  To  whom  the  commandment 
was  once  more  proclaimed  :  "  See,  for  that  the  Lord  hath 
given  you  the  Sabbath."  (v.  29.)  ''  So  the  people  rested  on 
the  seventh  day."  (y.  30.) 

The  narrative  requires  no  comment :  every  circumstance 
contradicts  the  theory  of  a  previous  Sabbath  law.  Very 
shortly  afterward,  the  institution  was  embodied  in  the  fourth 
commandment  {Exod.  xx.  8) ;  and  Moses,  in  referring  to  the 
Decalogue  many  years  after,  says  expressly :  "  The  Lord  made 
not  this  covenant  with  our  fathers,  hut  icith  us."  (^Deut.  v. 
3.)  So  in  Nehcm.  ix.  13,  14 :  "  Thou  camest  down  also  upon 
Mount  Sinai  ....  and  madest  knoum  unto  them  thy  holy 
Sabbath  .  .  .  hy  the  hand  of  Moses  thy  servant."  No  ingenu- 
ity has  successfully  evaded  the  force  of  this  deliberate  declara- 
tion.    "  I  caused  them  to  go  forth  out  of  the  laud  of  Egypt, 

and  brought  them  into  the  wilderness I  gave  them 

my  Sabbaths*  to  be  a  sign  between  me  and  them,  that  they 
might  know  that  I  am  the  Lord  that  sanctify  them  :"  Dlif^DD 

*  "  It  is  not  said  he  restored  them,  but  ^  gave'  them,  denoting  a 
new  institution,  and  as  peculiarly  belonging  to  them  ;  and  this  is  the 
sense  of  the  Jewish  nation  in  general,  that  the  Sabbath  only  belongs 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.  Ill 

Sojourners ;  and  Profclytef.  Views  of  the  Talmudists. 

(m'qadtsham) — literally  ''that  set  them  apart."  {Ezek.  xx. 
10,  12.) 

The  very  circumstance  of  the  fourth  commandment  being 
expressly  extended  to  "  the  stranger  wifhin  thy  gates,''  suffi- 
ciently shows  that  it  was  not  designed  for  those  without  thn 
Jewish  confines."^  iVnd  thus  too  when  proselytes  were  added 
to  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  from  among  the  Gentiles,  and 
*'the  sons  of  the  stranger  joined  themselves  to  the  Lord,"  it 
was  the  "  keeping  of  the  Sahhath  from  polluting  it,  and  the 
takinjr  hold  of  the  covenant,"  that  constituted  at  once  their 
most  earnest  exhortation,  and  their  most  distinctive  commenda- 
tion. {Isai.  Ivi.  6.) 

If  it  were  possible  to  corrohorate  this,  it  might  be  men- 
tioned that  the  Talmudical  writers  agree  that  it  was  instituted 
between  the  Exodus  and  the  promulgation  of  the  Decalogue. f 

to  them,  and  that  the  Gentiles  are  not  obliged  to  keep  it."  Gill. 
(Bod.  JDiv.  B.  iii.  8.) 

*  Vide  e.  g.  Lcvit.  xvii.  10,  13.  ''The  Israelites  have  never  pro- 
hibited a  Gentile  from  working  on  the  Sabbath,  or  advised  him  to  rest 
on  that  day,  unless  he  were  a  servant  or  a  pi'oselyte."     Talmud. 

Maimoxides  says  it  is  highly  improper  for  a  stranger  or  Gentile  to 
observe  the  Jewish  Sabbath. 

f  "  "We  gather  from  the  Talmudists,"  says  Selden  [De  Jure  Nat, 
lib.  iii.  cap.  9),  "that  the  time  of  its  institution  was  not  primordial, 
but  within  the  month  of  the  departure  from  Egypt."  And  after  citing 
R.  Jose  Ben  Chilpetha,  in  Seder  Olam  Rabba,  cap.  5 ;  Gemara  Baby- 
lonica,  ad  tit.  "  Sanhedrim,"  cap.  7 ;  also  tit.  "  De  Sabbaio,"  cap.  9, 
&c.  &c.  ;  likewise  Aben  Ezra,  ad  Dcut.  v. ;  the  Chaldee  paraphrase 
of  Uzielidus,  in  Ezod.  xv.  ;  Maimonides,  More  Nebochim,  part  iii.  cap. 
9,  &c.,  he  remarks:  ''The  Jews  indeed  consider  the  Sabbath  pecu- 
liarly theirs,  as  if  the  spouse  of  the  nation  ;"  and  adds  :  "  There  occur 
six  hundred  testimonies  to  the  same  effect,  among  the  Talmudic  and 
Cabalistic  wi-itei's."  [Ibid.  lib.  iii.  cap.  10.)  See  also  Wood's  Bib. 
Die.  (art.  "  Sabbath.") 

Dr.  Gill,  after  remarking  that,  in  all  the  patriarchal  history,  "  we 
nowhere  read  of  any  law  being  given  them  for  the  observation  of  the 
seventh-day  Sabbath,"  continues  :  "  The  .Jews  pretend  that  there  were 


112  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Belief  of  the  Christian  "  Fathers."  Selden  :  and  Spencer. 

In  an  ancient  Hebrew  hymn,  it  is  said :  '^  Thou  didst  not  give 
the  Sabbath,  0  Lord  our  Grod,  to  the  nations  of  the  earth.'' 
(Machzor,  Juddeorum  Germ.  part.  i.  fol.  49,  a. — vide  Manasseh 
Ben  Israel,'^c?e  Oreatione,  problem  8.) 

The  early  Christian  "  Fathers"  constantly  speak  of  the  Sab- 
bath as  having  been  first  given  to  the  Israelites.*  I  believe 
they  are  unanimous  upon  this  point; — at  least  I  am  not  aware 
of  any  one  of  them  who  assigns  an  earlier  origin  to  the  institu- 
tion. 

The  learned  Selden  elaborately  maintains  and  triumphant- 
ly establishes  the  Jewish  and  ceremonial  character  of  the 
Sabbath,  in  a  series  of  chapters.  (Z)e  Jure  Nat.  ct  Gent.  Lib. 
iii.  cap.  9 — 12.) 

Says  the  scarcely  less  distinguished  Spencer  :  "  It  can  be 
shown  by  the  clearest  evidence  that  God  appointed  the  Sab- 
bath to  be  observed — not  by  the  human  race — but  by  the  Israel- 
ites alone."  {De  Legihus  Uehrseor.  Ritual,  lib.  i.  cap.  iv.  sect. 
9.)    And  accordingly  it  always  has  heen  "  peculiar  to  the  Jew."t 

seven  laws  given  to  the  sons  of  Noah  ;  but  this  of  keeping  the  seventh- 
day  Sabbath  is  not  among  them."  (Bod.  Divin.  B.  iii.  ch.  8.)  The 
antiquity  and  universality  of  this  Jewish  tradition  of  the  Noachic 
Heptalogue  give  to  its  exclusion  of  the  Sabbath  the  greatest  value  as 
an  historic  evidence. 

*  See  Justin  Martyr  [c.  Tryph.)-^  Iren^eus  {cont.  Hcer.  iv.  30); 
Tertullian  {adv.  Jud.  2,  3,  4),  &c.  &c.  ;  also  Eusebius  the  historian 
(lib.  i.  c.  2,  4;  and  Corn,  in  Psal.  xci.)  ;  Athanasius  (Synop.  Sacr. 
Scrip.  Exod  ),  &c. 

•j-  It  may  be  noticed  in  illustration  that,  when  Antiochus  commanded 
the  Jewish  law  to  be  abolished,  it  is  recorded  among  the  changes  of 
custom  necessarily  consequent — "neither  were  the  Sabbaths   kept. 

And  whosoever  would  not  conform  themselves  to  the 

ways  of  the  Gentiles  were  put  to  death."  (2  Maccabees  vi.  6 — 9.)  In 
like  manner,  in  their  belligerent  history,  it  was  not  uncommon  for 
their  assailants,  on  discovering  this  peculiarity  of  their  religious  observ- 
ance, to  await  their  weekly  rest  for  the  purpose  of  attack  or  surprisal. 
(See  Josephus,  Antiq.  B.  xiv.  ch.  4,  sec.  3  ;  Jewish  War,  B.  i.  ch.  7, 
sec.  3 ;  also  Antiq.  B.  xiii.  ch.  i.  sec.  3  ;  B.  xviii.  ch.  9,  sec.  2.) 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.  113 

A  universal  ncgatiou.  "  The  old  Greek  poets"  examined. 

"Throughout  all  history  we  discover  no  trace  of  a  Sabbath 
among  the  nations  of  antiquity."  But  I  "  have  not  read  all 
history  I"  (p.  60.)  A  universal  negation  is  rarely  (if  ever) 
founded  on  personal  experience  or  absolute  knowledge.  Its 
legitimate  ground  is  induction  :  and  if  the  assumption  be  hasty, 
it  is  of  course  open  to  refutation.  I  believe  therefore  that  even 
with  very  limited  pretensions  to  historical  knowledge,  there 
was  no  want  of  a  becoming  modesty  in  the  universality  of  my 
denial. 

But,  says  my  friend,  "  The  old  Greek  poets,  Hesiod, 
Homer,  and  Callimachus,  call  the  seventh  day  '  holy.' " 
(p.  50.)  J.  N.  B.  has  neglected  "chapter  and  verse;"  and 
will  be  puzzled  to  verify  his  references.  In  following  Dr. 
DwiGHT  (not  always  accurate  in  his  quotations),  he  has  been 
led  into  error. 

The  nearest  approach  to  the  language  of  his  quotation,  I 
am  able  to  find  in  either  of  these  poets,  is  the  following  passage 
from  Hesiod  (about  1000  b.  c),  distinguishing  fortunate  days 
from  evil  days :  "  These  days  are  under  the  providence  of 
Jove :  the  first  day  of  the  new  moon  is  consecrated,  also  the 
fourth  day,  and  the  seventh  dai/j^  for  on  this,  Latona  bore  the 
golden-armed  Apollo :  both  the  eighth  and  ninth  days  of  the 
crescent  moon  are  likewise  especially  favorable  to  human  af- 

*  n^aiTov  gv>j,  TiTja?  TE,  Kai  iQhfA.r] — Ubcv  ny.a^.  This  is  the  Stereotyped 
eSJo|Mn — i£;0>  njwaf  ("the  seventh  day — a  Ao^y  day"),  so  currently,  yet 
so  carelessly  quoted  by  every  zealous  Sabbatarian,  from  Aristobulus, 
the  Jew  (b.  c.  150),  to  Dr.  Timothy  Dwight;  from  Dwight  down  to 
the  last  prize  essayist  on  "  Heaven's  Antidote  to  the  cui-se  of  Labor." 
The  number  of  learned  names  which,  in  modern  times,  have  blindly 
followed  their  false  guides  upon  this  point  would  form  a  most  imposing 
catalogue.  So  ready  is  the  acceptance  of  wished-for  evidence  on  the 
one  hand,  so  difficult  the  detection  of  a  vague  quotation  on  the  other. 
It  is  fully  time  that  this  piratical  mpressment  of  testimony  should  be 
'*  withstood  to  the  face."  It  is  fully  time  that  those  inadvertently  re- 
lying on  such  perversions  should  be  disabused,  and  should  have  the  im- 
posture publicly  exposed. 

10* 


114  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Hesiod.  Homer.  Callimachus. 

fairs.''  (Jlemerai :  verses  5 — 9  ;  or  of  "  Works  and  Dai/s," 
verses  767 — 771.)  If,  from  this,  mj  friend  is  able  to  construct 
"a  trace  of  the  weekly  Sabbath/'  he  is  welcome  to  the  con- 
struction. 

The  nearest  resemblance  to  anything  of  the  kind  I  can  dis- 
cover in  the  pages  of  Homer  (nearly  1000  b.  c),  is  where 
Ulysses,  entertaining  King  Alcinous  with  his  adventures,  re- 
lates how,  after 

*'■  Six  days  and  nights  a  doubtful  course  we  steer, 
The  next,  proud  Lamos'  stately  towers  appear:" 

{Odyssey,  x.  81.) 

or  in  a  subsequent  passage,  where,  after  returning  from  his 
long  wanderings,  he  beguiles  his  faithful  Eumaeus  with  the 
story  th  it, 

*'In  feast  and  sacrifice,  my  chosen  train 
Six  days  consumed: — the  seventh  we  ploughed  the  main." 

[Odyssey,  xiv.  252.) 

If  my  friend  sees,  in  these  passages,  an  evidence  of  Grecian 
Sabbatism,  I  will  not  rob  him  of  their  benefit. 

In  the  remaining  poems  of  Callimachus  (260  b.  G.f,  I 
cannot  even  meet  with  an  incidental  allusion  to  a  seventh  day  !* 
The  only  thing  septenary  occurs  in  his  Hymn  to  the  Birth- 
place of  Apollo;  which  narrates  that,  at  the  birth  of  Latona's 
son,  "  the  tuneful  swans  of  the  god,  seven  times  circled  around 
Delos,  singing."  {To Delos.  verses  24Q — 252.)     This  contribu- 

*  Clemens  Alexandrinus  (to  whom  Dr.  Dwight  is  indebted  for 
his  authorities)  cites  from  Callimachus  several  detached  and  un- 
meaning phrases  [Stromat.  lib.  v.),  ringing  the  changes  on  the  number 
"seren;"  such  as  "the  seventh  is  among  the  good  things;" — "all 
things  in  the  starry  heaven  have  been  constructed,  appearing  in  seven 
orbits,"  &c.  These  passages  are  not  to  be  found  in  any  of  the  poems 
of  Callimachus  now  extant ;  and  they  have  just  no  relation  whatever 
to  the  Sabbath  question.  It  so  happens  that  another  of  the  Fathers 
(EusEBius:  Evangel.  Prceparat.  lib.  xiii.  12),  quoting  these  very  same 
passages,  ascribes  them  (with  perhaps  equal  propriety)  to  Lixus  ! 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.        115 

Heathen  testimonies  concerning  the  Sahbath.  Ac.atrarchides. 

tion  to  my  friend's  cause,  I  suppose  he  will  hardly  be  desirous 
of  accepting. 

Such,  then,  is  the  whole  amount  of  pagan  authority  J.  N.  B. 
is  able  to  present  in  attestation  of  ''  the  sort  of  sanctity  attached 
to  the  seventh  day  among  the  ancient  heathen  nations!"  (p. 
50.)  The  truth  is,  ''we  discover  no  trace  of  a  jSahhath"  even 
among  those  oriental  nations  which  had  the  hebdomade  or 
week:  but  to  the  Greeks,  tJie  icetk  itself  was  unknown  I—thc'iT 
smallest  interval  being  the  decade  or  period  often  days.* 

I  will  therefore  make  "the  bold  and  unfortunate  assertion," 
that  neither  in  Hesiod,  nor  in  Homer,  nor  in  Callimaciius, 
the  three  classical  writers  adduced  by  J.  N.  B.  from  Dr. 
Dwight  (^Theohgi/,  vol.  iii.  Serm.  107),  and  by  Dr.  Dwight 
from  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Stromat.  lib.  v.),  can  the  most 
distant  allusion  be  discovered  to  sabbatical  or  septenary  in- 
stitutions. And  without  having  "  read  all  history,"  I  will 
further  venture  to  affirm  that  no  such  allusion  can  be  found 
throughout  the  entire  range  of  Grecian  literature !  I  challenge 
all  the  learning  that  is  in  the  heads  of  all  the  Sabbatarians, 
(and  that  is  not  little),  to  cite  one  solitary  hint  of  a  Sabbath, 
or  even  of  a  week ! 

Since  J.  N.  B.  invites  me  upon  classic  ground,  I  accompany 
him  with  pleasure;  and  I  have  the  satisfaction  of  affirming 
(with  a  confidence  which  I  hope  will  not  be  deemed  presump- 
tuous), that  no  Pagan  writer  ever  alludes  to  the  hebdomadal 
"Sabbath,"  otherwise  than  as  a  leading  Jewish  characteristic! 

Agatharchides,  a  Greek  writer,  who  flourished  B.  c.  120, 
thought  this  observance  one  of  the  most  remarkable  of  the 
Jewish  customs.     Though  none  of  his  works  are  now  extant, 

*  "The  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans  had  no  division  properly  an- 
swering to  our  weeks ;  although  the  former  had  their  decade  of  days ; 
and  the  latter  their  nundince,  or  market  days,  occurring  every  ninth 
day.  But  the  Egyptians  and  oriental  nations  had  a  week  of  seven 
days."  (Eschenbueg's  3Ianual  of  Class.  Lit.  edited  by  Prof.  Fiske, 
Part  V.  sec.  191;  or  of  the  4th  edition,  Part  i.  sec.  191,  b.) 


116  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Horace.  Ovid.  Strabo.        Apion.  Persius.  Seneca. 

he  is  cited  by  Josephus,  as  writing  thus :  '*  The  people  called 
Jews,  inhabit  an  exceedingly  strong  city,  which  it  appears  they 
call  Jerusalem.  They  are  accustomed  to  rest  on  every  seventh 
day,  on  which  times  they  will  neither  bear  arms  nor  engage 
in  husbandry,  nor  attend  to  any  worldly  affairs."  {Contra 
Apion,  lib.  i.  sect.  22.) 

If  the  Roman  poet  Horace  (b.  c.  25)  makes  mention  of 
the  word  "  Salhata,"  he  at  once  associates  it  with  the  '^curtis 
Judseis."   (Sath\  lib.  i.  sat.  ix.  69.) 

Does  Ovid  (b.  c.  10)  allude  to  this  institution,  it  is  as  "  the 
seventh  day  kept  holy  by  the  Jews"  {Ai-s  Amat.  lib.  i.  76) : 
or  again,  it  is  spoken  of  as  "a  festival  observed  in  Palestine" 
(/&.  lib.  i,  416) :  and  in  another  work,  he  uses  the  expressive 
phrase — '^foreign  Sabbaths!"  {Remed.  Amor.  lib.  i.  220.) 

Strabo,  the  indefatigable  voyager  and  close  observer, 
(a.  d.  10),  in  making  an  historical  reference  to  the  Sabbath, 
calls  it  "the  day  of  abstinence — on  which  the  Jews  refrain 
from  all  work."  [Geograph.  lib.  xvi.  Sj/ria.) 

Apion,  the  Egyptian  grammarian  (a.  d.  30),  in  his  igno- 
rance of  the  early  history  of  the  Jews,  suggests  a  most  ridicu- 
lous origin  for  their  Sabbath,  saying  that  "After  they  had 
travelled  a  six  days'  journey,  they  were  afflicted  with  buhoes, 
and  for  this  reason  they  rested  on  the  seventh  day ;  and  having 
arrived  at  the  country  now  called  Judea,  they  named  the 
seventh  day  '  Sahhaton,'  after  the  Egyptian  word  '  Sahhatosis' 
— the  name  by  which  the  disease  bubo  is  known  among  the 
Egyptians  !"  (cited  by  Josephus,  Contra  Apion,  lib.  ii.  sect. 
2.) 

The  satirical  Persius  (a.  d.  50)  has  a  sneer  at  "  the  Sab- 
baths kept  by  the  Circumcised"  (^Sat.  v.  184), —  "recutita 
sabbata ;" — an  expression  equally  remarkable  for  conciseness 
and  significance. 

The  Roman  philosopher  Seneca  (a.  d.  60)  severely  censures 
the  Jews  for  their  religious  infatuation;  saying  that  "  by  their 
Sabbaths  interposed,  they  waste  the  seventh  part  of  their  life 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.  117 


in  idleness.''  (From  a  lost  work  quoted  by  Augustine,  "  De 
civitat,  Deiy'  lib.  vi.  cap.  11.) 

The  witty  ^Jartial  (a.  d.  90),  in  an  epigram,  can  find  no 
more  distinctive  epithet  for  Jews,  than  "Sabbath-keepers.'' 
(^Ep.  lib.  iv.  epigr.  iv.  7.) 

Plutarch,  the  biographer  and  essayist  (a.  d.  100),  to 
^' point  a  moral,"  instances  the  historical  fact  that  "the  Jews- 
sitting  idly  down  on  their  Sabbath,  while  the  enemy  scaled 
and  occupied  their  walls — offered  no  resistance."  (  Opera :  Tom. 
ii.  Tract.  De  Superstitione.')  In  another  treatise,  he  endeavors 
to  show  that  the  Jews  derived  the  name  "  JSahhath"  from  the 
Greek,  aaSSaa/xoi  (sahbasmos  or  sahasjnos),  a  festival  of  Bac- 
chus :  "  SahaziW  being  one  of  the  names  of  that  deity.  {Sj/7n- 
posiac.  lib.  iv.  prob.  5.) 

Suetonius  (a.  d.  105),  illustrating  the  abstemiousness  of 
the  Emperor  Augustus,  quotes  him  as  writing  to  Tiberius — 
"  No  Jew  indeed  so  rigidly  keeps  fast  on  his  Sabbath,  as  I 
have  fasted  to-day."  {De  Csesarihus,  Lib.  ii.  cap.  76.)  The  Ro- 
mans very  naturally  inferring  that  a  day  so  strictly  observed 
as  the  seventh  day  rest,  must  be  a  "fast-day."* 

The  polished  Tacitus  (a.  d.  110),  in  his  short  description 
of  the  Jews,  records,  as  one  of  their  peculiarities,  that  "on  the 
seventh  day,  it  is  said  they  were  idle."  {Hist.  lib.  v.  sect.  4.) 
And  he  offers  various  vain  conjectures  to  account  for  so  singu- 
lar a  custom  If 

*  It  is  strongly  illustrative  of  the  ignorance  prevailing  among  the 
Roman  writers  concerning  the  origin  and  object  of  the  Sabbath,  that 
they  generally  describe  it  as  a  "fast."  Strabo,  Suetonius,  and  Jus- 
tinus  all  speak  of  it  as  such.  Plutarch  appears  to  have  come  nearer 
the  truth  ;  for  the  Jews,  so  far  from  making  it  a  fast  day,  have  always 
accounted  it  a  high  festival.  It  was  to  be  a  "feast  of  the  Lord" 
(Levit.  xxiii.  2,  3).  Indeed  it  was  a  serious  offence  to  fast  upon  it.  It 
is  said  of  Judith,  that  "she  fasted  all  the  days  of  her  life  excqyt  the 
Sabbaths  and  new-moons,  and  the  feasts  of  the  house  of  Israel."  [Ju- 
dith viii.  6.) 

f  One  of  his  suggestions  is  that  the  observance  was  designed  to 


118  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 


Juvenal.  Justinur.  Dion  Cassius.  Julian. 

The  poet  Juvenal  (a.  d.  115)  thought  it  worthy  of  a 
passing  notice,  as  distinctive  of  these  "  Barbarians/'  that  they 
'^observe  their  festival  Sabbaths."  QSatir.  lib.  ii.  sat.  vi.  158.) 
And  in  a  subsequent  satire,  he  speaks  of  those  who  "obey  the 
Jewish  law,  which  Moses  delivered  in  a  secret  volume,"  as 
being  a  bigoted  and  churlish  set,  "to  whom  every  seventh  day 
was  idle,  and  not  engaged  in  any  aim  of  life."  (lib.  v.  sat.  xiv. 
96—106.) 

JusTiNUS  (a.  d.  150)  informs  his  readers  that  "Moses,  having 
reached  Mount  Syna,  after  conducting  the  weary  Jews  seven 
days  through  the  deserts  of  Arabia — fasting,  on  his  arrival 
there,  appointed  the  seventh  day  (called  in  their  language 
^  sahhatum')  to  be  observed  perpetually  as  a  fast-day,  in  com- 
memoration of  the  day  which  had  terminated  their  hunger  and 
their  wandering!"  {Ilistor.  PhllqypLC.  lib.  xxxvi.  cap.  2.) 

Another  Roman  historian,  Dion  Cassius  (a.  d.  220), 
treating  of  the  Jews,  tells  us  that  "  the  day  which  is  called 
Saturn's  they  hold  sacred;  and  among  the  observances  peculiar 
to  that  da}^,  carefully  abstain  from  engaging  in  any  work  on 
it."  He  supposes  that  the  custom  of  "naming  seven  days 
after  the  seven  stars,  which  the  Romans  call  'planets,' 
was  derived  from  the  Egyptians:"  and  adds  that  this  appears 
to  have  been  wholly  unknown  among  the  ancient  Greeks," 
{Rom.  Hist.  lib.  xxxvii.) 

The  Emperor  Julian,  nephew  of  Constantino  (a.  d.  362), 
in  a  work  of  which  -only  fragments  have  been  preserved  to 
us,  speaks  of  Unitarianum  and  Sahhatlsm  as  the  two  great 
distinctions  of  the  Mosaic  code.  After  quoting  the  Decalogue, 
he  contemptuously  asks  —  "What  nation  is  there — verily, 
which  does  not  agree  that  (excepting  the  precept  '  Thou  shalt 
not  worship  different  Gods;'  and  the  one  ^Remember  the  Sab- 
batJida?/')  all  the  other  commandments  should  be  observed? 

honor  Saturn! — by  whose  name  the  seventh  day  was  then  generally 
known,  as  it  still  is  at  the  present  time. 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.  119 

CLAUDirs  RuTiLics.  Jewish,  and  Christian  authorities  examined. 

— and  that  punishments  such  as  those  of  the  law  of  Moses,  or 
more — or  less  severe — should  be  inflicted  on  those  who  violate 
them?''  {Opera.  Cyrlll.  advers.  Jul.  lib.  v.  2.) 

Even  so  late  as  the  fifth  century,  a  considerable  time  after 
Christianity  had  been  established  by  Constantine  as  the  law  of 
the  empire,  Claudius  Rutilius  (a.  d.  415),  in  a  poetical 
account  of  his  travels,  indulges  in  a  jeer  at  "the  Jew — that 
unsocial  animal,'^  and  "his  frigid  Sabbaths;"  with  whom 
"every  seventh  day  is  condemned  to  a  shameful  sloth." 
(Itinerar.  lib.  i.  383—392.)* 

Such  testimonies  supply  us  with  the  most  irresistible  con- 
firmation of  the  "  Proposition"  under  discussion.  Admirably 
do  they  illustrate  the  lamentation  of  Jeremiah,  in  the  Scripture 
Record — "  The  adversaries  saw  her,  and  did  mock  at  her  jSab- 
haths!"  (^Lament,  i.  7.)t  Most  triumphantly  do  they  over- 
throw my  friend's  cherished  "  fancy'^  of  a  Gentile  Sabbath. 

Having  thus  satisfactorily  disposed  of  our  "  heathen  testi- 
monies," I  might  readily  be  excused  from  noticing  the  two 
Jewish,  and  the  two  Christian  authorities,  to  which  J.  N.  B. 
has  appealed  in  addition,  in  corroboration  of  his  insubstantial 
theory.  Were  I  inclined  to  be  captious,  I  might  call  on  him 
for  "  chapter  and  verse,"  before  admitting  his  quotations  in 
evidence  :  or  were  I  inclined  to  be  formal,  I  might  at  once  dis- 
miss them  with  the  brief  answer — "incompetent,"  as  sum- 
marily as  I  would  the  assertions  of  any  modern  Sabbatarian. 
Before  accepting  their  secondary  evidence,  I  might  insist  on 
the  production  of  at  least  some  show  of  original  or  Gentile  au- 

*  These  authors  are  accessible  to  almost  every  one.  They  may  all 
be  found  in  the  Loganian  Department  of  the  Philadelphia  Library — 
a  noble  foundation,  whose  volumes  not  only  are  freely  open  to  the 
public  for  consultation  (as  in  the  Philadelphia  Library),  but  may  be 
taken  home  for  perusal  by  any  one  without  charge. 

f  "  The  Gentile  nations  all  considered  the  Jewish  Sabbath  very 
absurd,  and  made  it  a  no  less  fertile  theme  for  jest,  than  circumcision 
itself."     Spencer.  (Z>e  Leg.  Heb.  Kit.  lib.  i.  cap.  iv.  sect.  9.) 


120  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Testimony  of  Philo  :  and  of  Josephus. 

tliority.  But  being  neither  formal  nor  captious,  I  shall  aiford 
a  passing  glance  at  these  authors  also,  and  endeavor  to  elicit 
their  true  bearing. 

^'  Philo  says  :  ^  The  seventh  day  is  a  festival  to  every  na- 
tion.' ''  (J.  N.  B.  p.  50.)  To  explain  this  vague  declaration 
(found  in  his  Lib.  de  Opificio),  it  is  only  necessary  to  turn  to 
pHiLo's  remarks  upon  the  Sabbath  law.  ''The  fourth  com- 
mandment," says  he,  "  is  concerning  the  holy  seventh  day, 
requiring  that  it  should  be  sacredly  and  piously  observed. 
Some  states  celebrate  this  once  a  month,  counting  from  the 
appearance  of  the  new-moon ;  hut  the  Jewish  nation  observes  it 
weeMjjy  after  completing  every  six  days."  (^Opera:  Lib.  de 
Decalog.)^  The  evidence  of  Philo  will  scarcely  benefit  my 
friend  more  than  that  of  Hesiod  !  I  boldly  claim  him  as  an 
indorser  of  my  Proposition,  that  the  Sabbath  was  a  purely 
Jewish  institution. 

"  Josephus  says  most  explicitly :  '  No  city  of  Greeks  or 
Barbarians  can  be  found,  which  does  not  acknowledge  a 
seventh  day's  rest  from  labor.' "  (J.N. B. p.  50.)  Josephus  says 
nothing  so  foolishly  false,  however  his  translators  may  some- 
times have  construed  him  :  though,  even  if  he  had  done  so,  his 
assertion  would  weigh  nothing  against  the  combined  force  of 
''  all  Gentile  history. "f  In  the  passage  referred  to,  Josephus 
is  not  treating  of  the  antiquity  of  the  Sabbath,  but  of  the  in- 
fluence of  Jewish  institutions  on  other  nations.     The  whole 

*  "Nothing  can  be  more  obvious,"  says  the  learned  Selden,  citing 
this  passage  against  the  Sabbatarians,  "than  that  Philo  here  makes 
the  observance  of  a  weekly  festival  peculiar  to  his  ovv^n  people,  inas- 
much as  he  notices  that  another  kind  of  seventh  day  was  received 
among  certain  other  nations.  And  it  is  very  true  that  the  seventh 
day  of  the  month  was  sacred  to  the  birth  of  Apollo."  (Be  Jure  Hat.  et 
Ge7ii.  lib.  iii.  cap.  14.) 

f  Seldex  remarks  (De  Jure  Hat.  lib.  iii.  cap.  19) :  "A  seventh  day 
Sabbath  was  observed  among  no  jyeople  in  the  time  of  Josephus — except 
among  the  Jews,  and  the  few  Christians  who  followed  their  example." 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.  121 

,  A  perverted  quotation  rectified. 

passage  is  as  follows  :  ''  Moreover,  there  has  been  with  multi- 
tudes, for  a  long  time  past,  a  great  desire  to  emulate  our 
religious  customs :  nor  is  there  anywhere  any  city  of  the 
Greeks,  nor  a  single  Barbarian  nation,  whither  the  institution 
of  the  Hebdomade  (which  ice  mark  hy  resiting)  has  not 
travelled  )^  and  by  whom  our  fasts,  and  lighting  of  lamps, 
and  many  of  our  prohibitions  of  food  are  not  observed.^'  (  Con- 
tra Apioriy  lib.  ii.  sect.  40.) 

Making  due  allowance  for  the  natural  exaggeration  of  an 
apologist,  the  substance  of  this  statement  expresses  a  well- 
recognized  fact  in  Roman  history.  "'  The  institution  of  the 
Hebdomade"  (introduced  about  the  date  of  the  Christian  era) 
did  travel  almost  throughout  the  empire. f  But  Josephus,  so 
far  from  intending  to  assert  that  the  Sabbath  was  ever  a  Gen- 
tile ordinance,  in  the  very  next  section,  the  conclusion  of  his 
elaborate  vindication  of  the  Jews,  says :  "  If  we  have  shown 
that  the  origincd  introduction  of  these  institutions  is  our  oivn, 
let  the  Apions,  and  the  M(jlones,  and  all  the  rest  of  those  who 
delight  in  false  reproaches,  stand  confuted!"  {Cont.  Ap.  lib. 
ii.  sect.  41. )t  I  claim  Josephus  as  a  strong  indorser  of  the 
Jewish  character  of  the  Sabbath  ! 

*  Ev9a  fA,r\  TO  tjij  eSS'OjaaS'o;  {nv  a^youfxBv  hfJ.iii)  ro  i9o(  ov  ^icL7rB'poiTn>is.  Jo- 
SEPHUS  does  not  say  that  the  Greek  and  Barbarian  rested  ;  but  that 
^^we  [the  Jews]  observe  it  by  rest." 

f  Dion  Cassius  (a  century  and  a  half  later  than  Josephus)  informs  us 
that,  in  his  time,  the  custom  of  designating  every  recurring  seven  days 
by  the  names  of  the  planets,  was  practised  everywhere ;  and  he  refers 
its  origin — not  to  the  Jews,  but  to  the  Egyptians.  (^Rom.  Hist.  lib. 
xxxvii.) 

Dr.  Adams,  in  his  work  on  "Roman  Antiquities,"  observes:  "The 
ancient  Piomans  did  not  divide  their  time  into  weeks  as  we  do,  in  imi- 
tation of  the  Jews  ....  This  custom  was  introduced  \mder  the  Empe- 
rors." (Rom.  Anliq.  chap,  on  ^^ Roman  Year.^^) 

%  JosEPnrs  invariably  speaks  of  the  Sabbath  as  peculiar  to  his  own 
people ; — repeatedly  designating  it  as  their  ancestral  law,  [Antiq.  B. 
xiv.  ch.  iv.  2 ;  J.  War.  B.  ii.  ch.  xvi.  4,  &c.) — constantly  exhibiting  the 
11 


122  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Testimony  of  Clement  :  and  of  Eusebius. 

''  The  learned  Clement,  of  Alexandria/'  continues  J.  N.  B. 
{p.  50),  "  a  witness  of  the  highest  competencj_,  says  :  '  The 
Greeks,  as  well  as  the  Hebrews,  observe  the  seventh  day  as 
holy/  "  Not  quite ;  the  word  "  day''  is  interpolated.  The 
language  of  Clement  is  :  '^  Not  only  the  Hebrews,  but  even 
the  Greeks,  recognize  the  seventh  as  a  sacred  [number],  ac- 
cording to  which  the  whole  universe  revolves.  For  Hesiod 
says  of  it:  'The  first,  the  fourth,  and  the  seventh,  are  sacred 
days,' &c.  Callimachus  also  writes:  'The  seventh  is  among  the 
good  things,'  &c.,  'the  starry  heavens  \i2i\e  seven  revolutions/ 
&c.  So  also  the  elegies  of  Solon  greatly  distinguish  the 
VLumhev  seven."  (^Stromat.  Yih.  \.^  Clement  never  inculcated 
— either  in  this  work  or  elsewhere — the  universality  of  the 
Sabbath,  or  its  moral  obligation.  On  the  contrary,  he  evi- 
dently considered  it  altogether  a  Jewish  and  ceremonial  insti- 
tution ;  remarking  that  "  those  renewed,  observe  the  Sabbath 
by  abstinence  from  evil"  {Stromat.  lib.  iii.),  and  that  the 
spiritual  purport  of  the  ordinance  is  righteousness  and  con- 
tinence.  {Stromat.  lib.  iv.) 

"And,  finally,"  says  J.  N.  B.  {p.  50),  "the  learned  Euse- 
bius affirms  that  '  almost  all  the  philosophers  and  poets  ac- 
knowledge the  seventh  day  as  holy.'  "  Eusebius  does  not  say 
so ;  he  merely  quotes  Aristobulus  as  saying  so  (^Evangel. 
Prsepar.  lib.  xiii.  cap.  12)  ;  the  whole  of  this  chapter  being 
directly  transferred  from  that  writer,  as  Eusebius  explicitly 
declares,  both  at  its  commencement  and  at  its  termination  I"'" 


conti-ast  between  Jewish  and  Gentile  practice  on  this  subject  [Antiq. 
B.  xii.  eh.  vi.  2  ;  B.  xiii.  ch.  i.  3 ;  B.  xiv.  ch.  iv.  3  ;  B.  xviii.  ch.  ix. 
2  ;  J.  War,  B.  i.  ch.  vii.  3;  B.  iv.  ch.  ii.  3)  ; — and  carefully  recording 
that,  in  the  Jewish  appeals  for  religious  liberty,  or  in  the  edicts  of 
toleration  accorded  to  them,  the  privilege  of  this  national  custom  was 
especially  indicated.  [Aniiq.  B.  xiv.  ch.  x.  20,  21,  23,  25  ;  B.  xvi. 
ch.  ii.  3,  4  ;  ch.  vi.  2,  4,  8.) 

*  Aristobulus  cannot  escape  the  dilemma  of  having  been  either 
conversant  with  the  Greek  writers,  or  ignorant  of  them ;  he  is  charge- 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.        123 

]Mi.<approiiriation  of  the  "  seven  witnesses"  corrected. 

Now,  unfortunately  for  my  friend  here,  Eusebius  himself,  so 
far  from  sustaining  his  position,  expressly  asserts  that  "  those 
just  and  holy  men  who  lived  before  Moses  neither  observed 
nor  understood  the  Sabbath  days.  Hence,  neither  Abraham, 
nor  Isaac,  nor  Jacob,  nor  his  sons,  nor  those  more  ancient  yet 
than  these,  appear  to  have  had  any  knowledge  of  the  Sabbath. '' 
(^Comment ar .  in  Psalmos,  Ps.  xci. ;  see  also  \\\sllist.  Ecd.  lib. 
i.  cap.  4.) 

In  PART  II.  of  my  friend's  Reply  {p.  60),  recurring  to  the 
*^  mistake"  into  which  he  thinks  I  have  fallen  in  my  universal 
negation,  he  adds  :  "  I  have  corrected  his  mistake  by  the 
united  testimony  of  seven  competent  witnesses  :  Hesiod, 
Homer,  Callimachus,  Philo,  Josephus,  Clement,  and 
Eusebius."  In  return,  I  hope  that  by  these  seven  competent 
witnesses,  I  have  now  even  still  more  effectually  corrected  his 
own  very  serious  "  mistake."  And,  "  if  we  allow  the  fact 
thus  testified  by  so  many  witnesses.  Pagan,  Jewish,  and 
Christian,"  I  think  that  by  the  sound  philosophy  of  Bacon 
we  are  fully  warranted  in  the  affirmation  that  "  throughout  all 

able  -with  a  most  deplorable  dishonesty,  or  with  an  astounding  infa- 
tuation. One  instance  of  an  actual  falsification  of  the  text  of  Homer, 
to  aggrandize  Sabbatarianism  (which  has  been  copied  by  both  Clement 
and  Eusebius),  is  too  flagrant  to  be  here  passed  over.  The  passage 
occurs  in  the  Odyssey  (book  v.  line  262),  where  the  hero  of  the  poem, 
making  preparations  to  sail  from  Calypso's  island,  it  is  said  : — 

TETjaTOV  Y)fxa.e  £>]V,  )iai  t«  TST6Xfa-T0  awaVT*. 

"  It  was  now  the  fourth  day,  and  on  it  all  things  -were  completed." 
Aristobulus  has  quoted  this  line  verbatim,  with  the  simple  substitution 
of  'eC^o^ov  for  TST^aTov,  in  order  to  show  that  Homer  copied  his  ac- 
count— from  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis!  "  It  was  now  the  seventh 
day,  and  on  it  all  things  were  completed."  Uufortimately,  the  very 
next  line  of  the  poem  relates  that  Calypso  dismissed  Ulysses  {'nzfx'iT'rta) 
on  the  fifth  day  !  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add  that  the  Mosaic  quo- 
tation is  not  to  be  found  in  Homer.  Let  us  hope  that  the  two  learned 
and  distinguished  Christian  Fathers  who  copied  this  were  satisfied  to 
quote  ignorantly,  and  did  not  attempt  to  verify  their  quotations. 


124  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

All  the  Jewish  Sabbaths — "  moral," — or  none  of  them  so. 

history  we  discover  no  trace  of  a  Sabbath  among  the  nations 
of  antiquity." 

J.  N.  B.  very  kindly  constructs  for  me  an  ^^  argument  for 
the  ceremonial  nature  of  the  Sabbath,  drawn  from  the  fact  of 
its  incorporation  with  the  ceremonial  law  of  the  Jews ','"  and 
as  the  sophism  is  entirely  Ms  own,  I  am  not  surprised  that  it 
should  be  a  ''  non  sequitur."  (p.  56.)  The  important  fact 
communicated  by  Lcvit.  xxiii.  and  Nmnh.  xxviii.,  xxix  ,  is  not 
that  of  association  or  "incorporation/'  but  that  of  affiliation; 
the  fact  that  ''  the  Sabbath  of  the  Decalogue"  is  distinguished 
by  no  single  characteristic  from  a  variety  of  similar  festivals , 
which  also  commemorated  important  events  ;  which  also  were 
celebrated  with  peculiar  sacrifices ;  which  also  prohibited  ser- 
vile work  ;  which  also  were  "  convocations ;"  which  also  were 
entitled  ''  feasts  of  the  Lord  ;"  which  also  were  '^holy;"  which 
also  were  "  Sahhaths."  My  friend  must,  therefore,  either 
admit  that  these  also  were  "  moral"  institutions,  or  he  must 
admit  my  '^Second  Proposition."  I  transfer  to  him  the  onus 
proband  l.^ 

The  next  point  he  adverts  to,  is  "  the  incorporation  of  a 
motive  from  Jewish  history  into  the  reasons  for  its  observance." 
(Deuf.  V.  15.)  To  which  he  replies :  "  No  such  motive  is  found 
in  the  Decalogue  itself,  as  originally  delivered  by  God."  (p. 
57.)  Now  the  reason  assigned  in  the  "original"  Decalogue 
(Exod.  XX.)  is  actually  as  "  Jewish"^ — (having  been  revealed 
only  to  the  Jews) — as  that  given  in  the  second  Decalogue. f 
(^Dent.  v.)     And  it  is  just  as  utterly  inapplicable  as  that,  to 

*  "The  distinction  of  the  Sabbath  is  in  its  nature  as  much  R: posi- 
tive, ceremonial  institution,  as  that  of  many  other  seasons  which  were 
appointed  by  the  Levitical  law  to  be  kept  holy,  and  to  be  observed  by 
a  strict  rest."  Paley.   (3Ior.  Phil.  B.  v.  eh.  7.) 

I  "  Thus,  also,  the  great  reason  of  the  Sabbath,  I  mean  God's  rest 
from  the  works  of  creation,  is  a  temporary,  transient  reason  ;  because 
there  is  now  a  new  creation,  *  old  things  are  passed  away,  and  all  things 
are  become  new.'  "  Bishop  Taylor.  {Duct.  Dubitant.  B.  ii.  eh.  2,  rule  6, 
sec.  44.) 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.        125 

The  two  Decalogues  equallj'  national.  The  first  one  destroyed. 

the  Sabbath  advocated  by  J.  N.  13.  ;  for  it  is  in  fact  the  very 
reason,  and  the  onJy  reason  given  for  the  Saturdai/  Sabbath  : 
*'  The  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God/'  be- 
cause that  '^ He  rested  the  seventh  day!"  (^Compare  Exod. 
xxxi.  17,  with  Isdi  Ixv.  17.)  The  first  day  is  not  the  Lord's 
Sabbath,  because  that  "  in  it"  he  did  not  rest  (^Gen.  i.  5)  :  and 
Sunday  therefore  cannot  possibly  commemorate  the  Lord's  rest. 
As  Justin  Martyr  well  remarks,  it  commemorates  exactly  the 
opposite  circumstance, — the  first  crea7<*ye  labor  !  {ApoL  part  i.) 
But  passing  all  this,  where  did  my  friend  find  his  warrant 
for  thus  magisterially  repudiating  the  one  Decalogue,  and  ca- 
nonizing the  other  ?  By  what  prophet  was  it  revealed  to  him 
that  the  revised  edition  was  "perw?/«>7y  applicable  to  the  Jews," 
and  the  other  peculiarly  applicable  to  the  rest  of  mankind?  If 
he  is  disposed  thus  pointedly  to  contrast  the  two  Decalogues,  I 
will  remind  him  that  the  one  "  originalJy  delivered  by  God" 
was  destroyed.  {Exod.  xxxii.  19.)  If  he  insists  then  on  dis- 
criminating between  them,  I  shall  hold  him  to  the  Deuterono- 
my, — to  that  second  edition  of  the  "tables,"  which  was  not 
destroyed.  {Deut.  v.)  We  there  find  that  the  Sabbath  was 
expressly  given  to  the  Israelite  as  a  memorial  of  national  eman- 
cipation. Thou  wast  redeemed  from  an  oppressive  bondage;  and 
"therefore,  the  Lord  thy  God  commanded  thee  to  keep  the 
Sabbath  day!" — for  this  especial    reason  was  it  instituted.* 

*  "  It  is  an  argument  that  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  not  to  be  per- 
petual," says  Jonathan  Edwards,  "that  the  Jews  were  commanded 
to  keep  it  in  remembrance  of  their  deliverance  out  of  Egypt  ....  Now 
can  any  person  think  that  God  would  have  all  nations  under  the  Gos- 
pel, and  to  the  end  of  the  world,  keep  a  day  every  week,  which  was 
instituted  in  remembrance  of  the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  out  of  Egypt?" 
(Sermons,  ser.  xxvi.  On  the  Sabbath.)  This  argument  is  the  more  satis- 
factory as  coming  fi-om  an  ardent  Sabbatarian !  And  he  might  have  add- 
ed, with  no  less  cogency, — Can  any  Sunday  Sabbatarian  think  that  God 
would  have  all  nations  under  the  Gospel  keep  that  day  every  week  which 
commemorated  his  rest  from  creation  ?  {Exod.  xx.  10, 11 ;  Isai.  Ixv.  17.) 

11* 


126  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  Sabbath  a  Jewish  memorial ;  and  a  distinctive  institution. 

The  obvious  explanation  wby  this  reason  is  not  formally  as- 
signed in  Exod.  xx.,  is  that  the  institution  was  then  too  re- 
cent to  require  it.  Another  point  was  in  more  immediate  need 
of  illustration, — namely,  why  this  memorial  of  national  repose 
should  be  observed  weekly,  rather  than  monthly,  or  yearly ; 
and  why  on  Saturday,  rather  than  on  Sunday.*  But  the 
Israelites  were  distinctly  informed  that  it  was  for  them  a  peculiar 
institution  {Exod.  xxxi.  13),  whereby  they  might  know  them- 
selves ''set  apart," — DDK^ipD  (jn'cjadish-kem) — by  Jehovah. 
"'  It  is  a  sign  between  Me  and  you  throughout  your  genera- 
tions:"— "a  perpetual  covenant  f  (y.  16:) — declarations  ut- 
terly devoid  of  meaning,  if  the  Sabbath  was  then  of  moral  and 
''universal  obligation !"f  It  was  not  any  particular  ohservance 
— but  the  "  Sabbath"  itself— that  was  the  "  sign"  or  token  of 
their  "  separation."     {Ezek.  xx.  12.) 

But  it  is  urged  by  J.  N.B.  {p.  57)  that  Jesus  "came  not  to 
destroy  the  law,  but  to  fulfil  it;"  and  that  not  one  jot  or  tit- 
tle was  to  pass  from  the  law  "  till  all  sJioidd  be  fulfilled  ;" 
not  one  of  the  least  commandments  was  to  be  broken.  I  an- 
swer that  this  was  true — not  only  of  the  Sabbath  law,  but  of 
the  sacrificial — and  every  other  Jewish  law.  Not  one  tittle  of 
any  part  of  the  Law  could  "fail:"  (Luke  xvi.  16,  17  :)  not 
one  letter  of  it  could  be  either  "broken"  or  "destroyed :"  but 
"  all  things  must  be  accomplished."  (John  xix.  28,  80.)  And 
when  the  Sabbath  had  been  thus  accomplished  (Col.  ii.  14, 

*  "  Maimonides  and  other  Hebrews"  (says  Grotius)  "  well  dis- 
tinguish the  causes  why  the  rest  was  ordered,  and  why  this  particular 
duT/ :  the  former  cause  is  assigned  in  Deuteronomy — because  they  were 
delivered  from  a  hard  servitude,  &c.,  and  the  latter  cause  in  this  place 
[Fxod.  XX.] — ^because  this  day  was  chosen  by  God  in  which  to  rest," 
&c.  (Amiotatio?is  on  Old  Test.  Exod.  xx.) 

f  "  If  this  law  had  been  given  to  all  nations,  it  could  not  have  been 
a  distinguishing  '  sign^  of  them  from  others  ;  nor  would  it  be  known 
thereby  that  God  had  'separated'  them  to  himself  above  all  i)eople." 
Gill,   [Comment,  on  Exod.  xxxi.  13.) 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.        127 

The  Sabbath  not  "  moral"  because  incorporated  in  the  Decalogue. 

17;  ITeh.  iv.),  then  did  it  pass  away  forever  {lleb.  yiii.  13  ; 
ix.  11;  John  Tiii.  36) — 

"EstaWislied"  and  completed, — not  "made  void," 
Its  purpose  "  all  fulfilled,"  but  not  "  destroyed." 

It  is  still  contended  that  the  Sabbath  law  is  moral,  because 
incorporated  in  the  Decalogue,  {p.  68.)  In  this  J.  N.  B.  re- 
vives the  non  sequitur  he  but  lately  so  satisfactorily  exposed- 
If  no  '"incorporation"  can  make  a  ceremonzaHaw,  equally  true 
is  it  that  no  ''incorporation"  can  make  a  moral  law.  "The 
seventh  day"  is  incorporated  in  the  Decalogue,  and  yet  my 
friend  has  labored  vigorously  to  explain  it  away.  "  The  se- 
venth day  of  the  Decalogue  I  hold  to  be  a  part  of  the  moral 
law  of  the  Sabbath,  but  not  the  mere  circumstance  of  its  order  or 
mode  of  designation."  (p.  59.)*  Be  it  so;  at  least  a  u-ee7t-/y  Sab- 
bath is  by  this  admitted  as  an  integral  part  of  the  law;  indeed  a 
^'weekly  period"  is  very  shortly  afterward  expressly  asserted  by 
J.  N.  B.  to  be  "re^wrrecZby  the  Decalogue."  (p.  60.)  And  he  has 
before  informed  us  that  a  "weekly  Sabbath,  rather  than  one 
oftener  or  more  seldom,  is  not  of  itself  obvious  F'  (p.  15.)  A 
happy  description  of  his  "moral  law  !"  "  3Ioral  precepts,"  says 
Bishop  Butler,  "  are  precepts,  the  reason  of  which  we  see. 
Moral  duties  arise  out  of  the  nature  of  the  case  itself,  prior  to 
external  command."  {Anal.  P.  ii.  ch.  1.)  If,  as  J.  N.  B.  con- 
tends, the  Sabbath  is  obligatory  because  commanded  by  the 
Decalogue,  then  can  it  by  no  possibility  be  a  moral  law  If 

■5^  "  I  suppose  it  to  be  unreasonable  to  say  that  although  the  seventh 
day  is  not  moral,  yet  that  one  day  is — or  at  least  that  some  time  be 
separate  is  moral ;  for,  that  one  day  in  seven  should  be  separate  can  have 
no  natural,  essential,  and  congenite  reason,  any  more  than  one  in  ten  or 
one  in  six :  for  as  it  does  not  naturally  follow  that,  because  God  ceased 
from  the  creation  on  the  seventh  day,  therefore  ice  must  keep  that  holy 
day,  so  neither  could  we  have  known  it  without  revelation  ;  and  there- 
fore what  follows  from  hence  must  be  by  positive  constitution."  Bish- 
op Taylor.  [Duct.  Duhitant.  B.  ii.  ch.  2,  rule  vi.  51.) 

•j-  If  I  "  can  set  aside  the  moral  nature  of  the  fourth  commandment," 


128  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  ceremonial  parallel  proclaimed  by  Jesus. 

To  the  plain  intimations  I  have  produced  from  the  teachings 
of  Jesus,  that  the  fourth  commandment  was  merely  ritual  (as 
•where  he  justified  the  Sabbath-reaping  on  the  ground  of  hun- 
ger), J.  N.  B.  replies:  "My  friend  must  be  hard  driven  for 
evidence  when  he  infers  from  the  case  of  David  eating  the 
shew-bread,  a  perfect  parallel  between  the  two  laws."  {p.  64.) 
Hard  driven  indeed  is  he  who  attempts  to  evade  the  parallel- 
ism directly  instituted  by  Jesus  himself !  Its  very  essence 
was  a  common  character  of  obligation.  To  cite  the  instance 
of  an  excusable  breach  of  an  ordinance,  to  vindicate  a  case  where 
there  was  no  breach,  would  truly  form  a  pointless  argument. 
No  lesson  from  the  Bible  can  be  clearer  than  that  both  these 
actions  were  infractions  of  the  literal  statute;  (see  Levit.  xxiv. 
9,  xxii.  10;  and  Fxod.  xvi.  23  ;  Nch.  xiii.  15) — that  both  were 
occasioned  by  the  same  "necessity;" — that  both  were  held 
excusable  on  the  same  plea; — that  both  restrictions,  in  short, 
were  vlolahle,  and  not  moral  ordinances. 

If  by  a  strict  construction,  this  "reaping"  profaned  the  Sab- 
bath, so  did  the  very  duties  of  "  the  priests  in  the  temple  pro- 
fane the  Sabbath ;"'''  if,  in  obeying  the  requirements  of  the 

says  J.  N>  B.  [p.  66),  "  it  will  be  an  easy  thing,  by  the  same  process, 
to  set  aside  the  fifth  and  seventh,  not  to  say  the  sixth,  eighth,  ninth, 
and  tenth.     Facilis  descensus  Averni .'" 

Fer  contra:  says  Dr.  Gill,  "The  Sabbath  law  is  not  of  a  'moral' 
nature," — otherwise  "it  could  not  have  been  dispensed  with  nor  abol- 
ished, as  it  is  in  ]\Iat(.  xii.  1—12  ;  and  Col.  ii.  16,  17."  [Body  of  Divin. 
vol.  iii.  B.  iii.  ch.  8.)  "  The  observance  of  the  Sabbath,"  says  Bishop 
Warbubton,  "is  no  more  a  natural  duty  than  circumcision."  [Div. 
Lega.  B.  iv.  sec.  6,  note.)  "  The  fourth  commandment,"  says  Arch- 
bishop Whately,  "  is  evidently  not  a  'moral,'  but  a  <  positive'  precept." 
"The  dogma  of  the  'Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster,'  that  the 
observance  of  the  Sabbath  is  part  of  the  moral  law,  is  to  me  utterly 
unintelligible  !"  [E^ssays,  v.  note  A.  On  the  Suhballi.)  Dijjicilis  co7iscn- 
sus. 

"^  One  evidence  that  the  priests  "profaned  the  Sabbath,"  will  be 
seen  by  comparing  Numb,  xxviii.  10,  with  Fxod.  xxxv.  3.     As  in  the 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.  129 

The  Salibiith  sidwrdinate  to  man  :  and  therefore  not  "  moral." 

temple-service,  these  priests  were  yet  held  "blameless/'  Jesus 
was  "greater  than  the  temple/'  and  therefore  better  justified 
the  "profanation/'  if  "mercy"  be  more  acceptable  to  God 
than  "sacrifice/'  then  is  he  "guiltless"  who  places  human 
comfort  above  ritual  observance.  {Matt.  xii.  3 — -7.)* 

But  beyond  all  this,  the  Sabbath  hsuhservientio  man,yield- 
inoj  to  his  emergencies  :  man  is  not  subservient  to  the  Sabbath, 
enchained  by  its  exactions.  This  constitutes  the  very  distinc- 
tion between  moral  and  positive  laws.  Man  ^s  made  "for  the 
observance  of  the  moral  law.  On  the  contrary,  all  ^positive' 
institutions  were  madeybr  man." 

J.  N.  B.  entitles  the  argument  of  Bishop  Warburton  a 
"specious  fallacy"  Q;.  65),  but  he  does  not  venture  to  assail 
its  positions. t     He  endeavors  to  obscure  the  distinction  by  a 

Cease  of  Sabbath  circumcision,  and  of  every  other  collision  of  laws,  one 
regulation  is  necessarily  set  aside  by  another. 

*  '<  He  that  did  ordain  the  Sabbath  day,  may  also  take  away  the 
Sabbath.  And  he  that  ordained  the  Sabbath,  did  ordain  it  for  man's 
sake,  and  not  contrariwise — man  because  of  the  Sabbath  day.  It  is 
meet  therefore  that  the  keeping  of  the  Sabbath  day  give  place  to  the 
profit  and  commodity  of  man."     Erasmus.   [Paraphrase  in  loco.) 

f  It  is  a  matter  for  some  gratulation  to  find  such  logicians  as  a  Bax- 
ter, a  Warburton,  a  Horsley,  and  a  Whately,  exactly  coinciding  in 
this  "  specious  fallacy."  Says  Baxter  :  "  It  seemeth  plainly  to  mean 
that,  being  but  a  positive  latv,  he  had  power  to  change  it,  and  dispense 
with  it,  as  well  as  with  other  positive  and  Mosaical  laws."  (Practical 
Works,  vol.  iii.  On  Lord's  day.  Appendix,  ch.  i.)  Warburton  re- 
marks— ^^ X\\  2)ositive  institutions  were  '  made  for  man,'  for  the  better 
direction  of  his  conduct  in  certain  situations  of  life ;  the  observance  of 
which  is  therefore  to  be  regulated  on  the  end  for  which  they  were  in- 
stituted: for  (contrary  to  the  nature  of  TMom^  duties)  the  observance 
of  them  may,  in  some  cii'cumstances,  become  hurtful  to  man  for  whose 
benefit  they  were  instituted;  and  whenever  this  is  the  case,  God  and 
nature  grant  a  dispensation."  [Div.  Leg.  B.  iv.  sec.  6,  note  "  rrrr.") 
Horsley  argues  upon  the  text,  that  "  What  is  aflarraed  of  the  Sabbath 
in  these  remarkable  words,  is  equally  true  of  all  the  ordinances  of 
external  worship  ....  We  have  our  Lord's  authority  to  say  that  tho 


130  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

A  "  fallacy."  The  man ;  and  the  law.  A  lame  construction. 

paralogism, — by  an  application  to  the  remote  analogy  of  "  the 
law  of  Marriage."*  The  answer  is  obvious  :  just  so  much  of 
this  kw  as  is  really  "moral"  was  not  "made  for  man;"  but 
man  was  made  for  it ;  "  the  end  of  his  creation  being  for  the 
observance  of  the  moral  law."  Just  so  much  of  "the  law  of 
Marriage"  as  is  "  positive"  (as  the  legal  form  or  ceremony, 
&c.)  "  teas  made  for  man,"  and,  like  the  Sabbath  law,  must  be 
regulated  entirely  by  circumstances. 

I  have  adverted  to  the  "sad  nonsense"  made  of  this  striking 
argument  of  Jesus,  by  my  friend's  previous  construction.  He 
has  attempted  to  amend  it,  but  with  slight  success ;  and  as  he 
Bays  "  I  submit  to  W.  B.  T.  himself,  whether  there  is  any  want 
of  logical  connection"  in  the  construction  {p.  66),  I  must  in 
all  candor  say,  I  think  it  still  a  "  most  lame  and  impotent 
conclusion."  The  force  of  the  declaration  was  not  and  could 
not  be  in  the  universaUtij  of  its  first  branch :  it  lay  entirely  in 
the  antithesis, — in  the  contrasted  subordination  of  the  law  and 
the  man.f     With  my  friend,  I  submit  our  respective  exposi- 

observance  of  them  is  not  itself  the  end  for  which  man  was  created : 
man  was  not  made  for  these.  Of  natui-al  duties  we  affirm  the  contrary : 
the  acquisition  of  that  virtue  which  consists  in  the  habitual  love  and 
practice  of  them  is  the  very  final  cause  of  man's  existence.  These, 
therefore,  are  the  things  for  which  man  was  made :  they  were  not  made 
for  him."  [Sermons,  serm.  xxii.  On  the  Sabbath.)  And  Whately,  com- 
menting on  the  same  sadly  perverted. declaration  of  Jesus,  says:  "  He 
evidently  means,  that  though  He  made  no  pretensions  to  ^  dispensing 
power  in  respect  of  moral  duties  (man  being  made  for  them),  positive 
ordinances,  on  the  contrary,  being  'made  for  man,'  might  be  dispensed 
with,  or  abrogated  by  the  same  authority  which  established  them ;  viz. : 
by  the  divine  authority  which  he  claimed."  [Essays,  &c.  v.  A.) 

*  ''  Marriage,'"  says  Bishop  Warburton,  "  is  of  a  mixed  nature  ;  in 
part  a  sacred  ordinance,  in  part  a  human  institution  ....  This  dis- 
tinction is  marked  out  to  us  by  the  nature  of  things  ;  and  confirmed  by 
laws  divine  and  human  ....  It  is  a  contract  so  virtually  circumstanced 
as  the  laws  of  Religion  ordain  ;  and  &q  formally  executed  as  the  laws  of 
each  particular  society  prescribe."  [Sermons,  serm.  xvii.) 

f  An  exact  translation  of  the  sentence  will  pei'haps  render  this  even 


L 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.  131 

Sabbatarian  Pharisees  rebuked.  The  Sabbath's  "  Lord."  Paul's  declaration. 

tions  to  ''every  unprejudiced  mind.''  "  This  much  perverted 
quotation/'  says  J.  N.  B.  (modifying  my  remark),  was  not 
against  "  Sabbatarians/'  but  against  "bigoted  Pharisees  !" — 
Still,  as  these  bigoted  Pharisees  certainly  were  not  Anti-sah- 
hatarians,  its  legitimate  force  was  against  almost  "the  straitest 
sect"  of  Sabbatarians,  by  my  friend's  admission  !  and  "hon- 
esty requires  that  it  should  not  be  employed  for  an  opposite 
purpose." 

But  Jesus  was  "Lord  of  the  Sabbath."  These  words  im- 
port something  vastly  more  significant  than  that  "  his  authority 
was  paramount  in  settling  the  construction  T'  {p.  64.)  Thus 
understood,  "  every  trace  of  their  glory  vanishes."  Jesus 
claimed  to  be  "  Lord" — not  of  the  construction,  but  of  the  in- 
stituiion!  and  being  its  Sovereign,  could  acknowledge  no  al- 
legiance to  it  !  Lord  "of  a  '  strictly  ceremonial  and  Jewish 
institute !' "  exclaims  J.  N.  B.  incredulously,  (p.  67.)  Yes, 
my  friend,  it  was  of  all  these  ceremonial  institutions  that  Jesus 
was  pre-eminently  '"'' LordV^  {Epli.  ii.  15;  Heb.  ix.  9 — 11; 
Col.  ii.  14.) 

I  have  quoted  the  express  assertion  of  Paul,  that  "the  Sab- 
bath days  are  a  shadow;"  reminding  J.  N.  B.  that  he  who 
affirms  a  limitation  of  its  application  must  clearly  prove  it.  He 
replies:   "And  I  hope   clearly  to  prove  it   thus.     Paul  is  the 

more  apparent ; — if  such  a  thing  indeed  be  possible.  To  a-ct.QQa.tov  Iia 
Toy  avQ^otfTTov  gj/gveroj  ovx^  o  ayQ^uTrot  5'tct  to  a-aCQanv  :  "  The  Sabbath  for  the 
man  was  made,  not  the  man  for  the  Sabbath."  How  uttei-l}^  inexcusa- 
ble the  version — the  Sabbath  was  "designed,  like  all  other  moral  laws, 
for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  race!"  (p.  66.)  To  complete  my  friend's 
paraphrase,  he  should  add — "  and  not  the  whole  race — for  the  Sab- 
bath!" For  the  term  "man"  must  certainly  be  as  comprehensive  on' 
the  one  side  of  the  antithesis  as  on  the  other.  He  must  be  delighted 
with  the  following  parallel:  "  Spectacles  were  made  for  man;  not  man 
for  spectacles  :"  whence  it  is  obvious  that  spectacles  "  were  designed 
for  the  benefit  of — the  whoteracer  As  Gill  well  observes,  "by  '  man' 
is  7iot  meant  all  mankind ;  for  the  Sabbath  was  never  appointed  for  all 
mankind,  nor  bindinj  upon  all."  [Comment,  on  Mark  ii,  27.) 


132  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

A  begging  of  the  question.  An  appropriate  self-reflection. 

servant  of  Jesus  Christ.  Jesus  Christ  taught  the  perpetuity 
of  the  Decalogue,  in  even  the  least  of  its  commandments,  of 
which  the  Sabbath  is  one.  This,  therefore,  was  the  doctrine 
of  Paul!''  (p.  61.)  No; — my  friend,  ?/o?i  cannot  prove  it — 
"thus!"  Paul's  language  directly  contradicts  your  inference  ! 
(see  also  2  Cor.  iii.  7 ;  Heb.  viii.  13.)  Jesus  did  not  teach 
"  the  perpetuity  of  the  Decalogue  ;"  he  taught  exactly  the  op- 
posite !  {Matt.  vii.  29;  V.  21,  27;  Mark  ii.  28;  xii.  29,  31; 
John  V.  8,  17;  18  ;  viii.  5,  7.)  The  assumption  is  a  petitio 
principii 

Apparently  dizzied  and  excited  by  the  completeness  of  the 
circle  he  has  traversed,  J.  N.  B.  exclaims:  ''With  what  as- 
tonishment would  Paul,  if  he  were  now  among  us  hodiJy,  behold 
an  attempt  to  torture  his  language  into  a  direct  opposition  to  a 
fundamental  doctrine  of  his  Master  !  What  conceivable  form  of 
'  wresting  the  Scriptures'  could  be  more  painful  to  his  generous 
spirit  ?"  {p.  61.)  Did  I  delight  in  declamation,  I  might  per- 
haps make  an  appropriate  application  ;  but  I  prefer  confining 
myself  to  the  argument.  I  feel  it  more  agreeable  to  establish 
such  an  accusation  than  to  assert  it. 

Whenever  Jesus,  in  the  course  of  his  teachings,  had  occasion 
to  sum  up  the  great  leading  principles  of  the  natural  or 
moral  law  {Matt.  xix.  18—21 ;  Mark  x.  19  ;  Luke  x.  27,  28), 
that  institution  so  venerated  by  the  ritual  Pharisees — "  '  the 
pearl  of  da3'S,'  the  blessing  of  this  world,  and  the  beacon  light 
of  that  which  is  to  come,"  was  always  strangely  or  significantly 
passed  by,  without  a  single  approving  notice;  while  his  very 
method  of  quotation  seemed  carefully  designed  to  discredit  any 
idea  of  the  Decalogue   being  the  compendium  of  morality.* 

*  "The  old  custom,"  says  Professor  Stuart,  "of  deducing  every 
duty  either  toward  God  or  toward  man,  from  these  ten  commandments, 
is  unsatisfactory  and  inexpedient;  unsatisfactory,  because  one  must 
strain  them  beyond  measure  in  order  to  malce  them  comprise  every 
duty  (and  must  therefore  do  violence  to  the  laws  of  exegesis) ; — 
inexpedknt^  because  if  these  ten  commandments  embrace  all  duty,  then 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.        133 

The  Sabbath  discarded  from  the  moral  teachings  of  Jesus  aud  the  Apostles. 

In  that  mountain  sermon,  so  remarkable  for  the  comprehen- 
siveness of  its  moral  application,  we  hear  no  intimation  of  the 
necessity  of  keeping  six  days  less  holy  than  the  seventh  ! 
In  the  corresponding  summaries  we  occasionally  find  in  the 
Epistles,  there  is  the  same  impressive  silence  concerning  that 
*'  safeguard  of  virtue,  that  glory  of  religion,  that  pillar  and 
prop  of  society,' ' — the  holy  Sabbath  !  (^Rom.  xiii.  7 — 9 ; 
James  i.  27 ;  ii.  10,  11);  while,  on  the  other  hand,  in  all  the 
catalogues  of  crime  and  unholiness,  we  meet  with  no  allusion  to 
that  dark  profanity  ^^  Sahhatli-hrealchuj  T'  (1  Cor.  v.  11;  vi. 
9,  10;  Gal  V.  19—21;  1  Tim.  i.  9,  10.)  What  moral  law 
has  been  or  could  be  so  neglected  throughout  the  Christian 
Scriptures  ?  AVhat  moral  delinquency  has  been,  or  could  be 
so  wholly  unrebuked  ?  (2  Tim.  iii.  17.)  '' Methinks,''  says 
BuNYAN,  "  that  Christ  Jesus  and  his  apostles  do  plainly 
enough  declare  this  very  thing :  that  when  they  repeat  unto 
the  people  or  expound  before  them  the  moral  law,  they  quite 
exclude  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  :  yea,  Paul  makes  that  law 
complete  without  it  !"  (^Dis.  on  tlie  Seventli-day  Sabbath: 
ques.  ii.) 

"  I  take  it  for  granted,^'  says  my  friend  (p.  56),  "that  two 
men  of  average  intelligence  and  candor,  with  the  same  sources 
of  evidence  open  before  them,  could  not  come  to  such  opposite 

is  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch  which  comprises  statutes  that  are  a  rule 
of  duty,  either  more  or  less  superfluous,  and  might  well  be  spared. 
The  argument  that  these  commands  are  j^c^pc^ual  because  they  were 
'engraven  in  stone,'  will  not  weigh  much  with  any  one  who  knows 
that  all  important  laws  of  ancient  times  were  engraven  on  stone  or 
metal,  in  order  that  they  might  be  both  a  public  and  a  lasting  monu- 
ment of  what  the  legislative  power  required-  .  .  .  It  is  plain 
from  a  bare  inspection  of  these  ten  commandments  that  they  comprised, 
and  were  designed  to  comprise,  only  the  leading  and  most  important 
maxims  of  piety  and  morality.  To  deduce  more  from  them  than  thisy 
is  to  force  on  them  a  construction  which  they  will  not  fairly  bear." 
(Hebrew  Chresiomalhy,  part  ii.  no.  27,  Notes,  p.  146,) 

12 


134  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  "  moral  and  ceremonial  confounded."  Authority — conclusire. 

conclusions  on  a  question  like  this,  unless  the  question  was 
complicated  with  circumstances  that  tend  to  confound  moral 
and  ceremonial  distinctions/^  I  think  this  is  clear;  and  I 
think  it  equally  clear  that  the  ^'negative''  is  entitled  to  "the 
benefit  of  the  doubt/'  It  is  conceivable  that  persons  of  the 
highest  intelligence  and  candor  should,  through  the  resistless 
influence  of  early  and  continuous  training,  come  to  consider 
ritual  observances  as  of  inviolable  obligation  (/or  this  toe  some- 
times see)  ; — but  it  is  not  conceivable  that  the  wise  and  good 
should  ever  be  led  by  "  some  mistaken  view  of  Christian  lib- 
erty," to  deny  a  moral  obligation ; — for  this  would  be  to  over- 
throw its  fundamental  definition.  Accordingly  "  if  a  thousand 
Christian  divines  of  the  highest  distinction,  with  Luther  and 
Calvin  at  their  head,  were  to  'break  it  and  to  teach  men  so,'  "  I 
claim  that  this  would  be  decisive  as  to  its  "moral"  character; — 
that  no  amount  of  counteracting  evidence  could  weigh  a  feather 
in  the  balance;  however  clearly  it  might  establish  the  perpet- 
ual ohligation  of  the  law.  Here  is  an  issue,  where  "  authority" 
is  final.  If  therefore  I  can  produce  the  concurrent  sentiment 
of  the  most  venerated  and  profound  of  the  Christian  Fathers* 
— of  the  most  devoted  and  illustrious  of  the  early  reformers 
— of  the  most  popular  and  brilliant  of  modern  Ecclesiastical 
writers — then  have  I  more  than  established  my  "  Second 
Proposition,"  apart  from  the  conclusive  testimony  I  have 
adduced  from  both  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian  Scriptures. 

W.  B.  T. 

*  iKENiEUS  [adv.  //a?r.  lib,  iv.  c.  30,  31);  Tebtullian  [de  Idolat. 
lib.  iii.);  Cyprian  {ad  Quirin.  c.  59,  and  c.  1  de  exhort.  Martyr.);  Origen 
i^Hom.  viii.  in  Ex.  lib.  15) ;  Augustine  {contr.  Faust,  c.  4,  7);  &c.,  ex- 
pressly afi&rm  that  the  Sabbath  law  was  purely  ceremonial  and  no 
part  of  the  moral  law.  And  such  indeed  was  the  pervading  opinion 
of  all  antiquity.  "The  Fathers,"  says  Calvin,  "frequently  call  it  a 
s%adowy  commandment,  because  it  contains  the  external  observance  of 
the  day,  which  was  abolished  with  the  rest  of  the  figures  at  the  advent 
of  Christ."     {Instit.  lib.  ii.  c.  7.) 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.        135 


A  PharLsaic  construction" — inadmissible.         Contemporary  exposition. 


PART    III. 

"  The  Lord  our  God  made  a  covenant  with  us  in  Horeb.  The  Lord 
made  not  this  covenant  with  our  fathers,  but  vriih  us — even  us,  who 
are  all  of  us  here  alive  this  day." — Deuteroxomt  v.  2 — 15. 

"  Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a  new 
covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel,  and  with  the  house  of  Judah." — 
Jeremiah  xxxi.  31. 

<'In  that  he  saith,  aneio  covenant,  he  hath  made  the  first  old.  Now 
that  which  decayeth  and  waxeth  old,  is  ready  to  vanish  away." — 
Hebrews  viii.  13. 


\ 


III.  The  exemplari/  violation  of  the  Sahhath. 
I  MOST  fully  concur  with  mj  friend  in  the  gravity  of  the 
"Third  Proposition."  Most  thoroughly  do  I  recognize  the 
truth,  that  its  statement,  "  if  not  sustained,  demands  profound 
regret  and  public  retraction  !"  (p.  68.)  Let  him  rest  assured, 
he  shall  have  it !  The  Proposition  (as  correctly  announced 
by  J.  N.  B.)  "  is  built  upon  the  construction  of  the  word 
^  work'  in  the  fourth  commandment."  But  when  he  attempts 
to  modify  the  legal  restriction  by  the  word  "  unnecessary,"  I 
promptly  check  him.  This  "is  to  adopt  a  Pharisaic  construc- 
tion." Our  civil  judges,  "  learned  in  the  law,"  have  not  yet 
agreed  upon  the  exact  meaning  of  this  term.  No  such 
standard  of  interpretation  as  may  be  adjusted  by  the  uncertain 
and  ever  varying  judgment  of  individual  expediency,  is  admis- 
sible here.  "We  have  a  more  sure  word  of  prophecy;"  and 
to  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  law  shall  I  strictly 
confine  my  friend. 

Of  all  means  of  determining  the  "  intent  of  the  lawgiver," 

and  consequently  the  application  of   the  law,  contemporary 

exposition  has  ever  been  justly  held  the  most  decisive.    When, 

therefore,  we  discover  the  import  of  the  prohibition  "  in  it  thou 

•    shalt  not  do  any  work," — by  adjudged  cases  or  illustrative 

~'  exhortations  (as  in  Exod.  xvi.  23;  xxxv.  3;  xvi.  29  ;  Numb. 


136  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  violation  of  an  explicit  command — not  to  be  evaded. 

XV,  32  ',  Amos  viii.  5 ;  IsaL  Iviii.  13 ;  Jerem.  xvii.  21,  22 ; 
JSfeh.  X.  31 ;  xiii.  19),  then  have  we — so  far  as  these  cases  ap- 
ply— an  authoritative  and  final  decision  as  to  the  requirements 
of  the  fourth  commandment.     No  sophistry  can  evade  it. 

I  have  shown,  by  a  comparison  of  John  v.  8  with  Jer.  xvii. 
21,  that  Jesus  ostentatiously  violated  the  fourth  commandment. 
The  fact  stands  unshaken  and  inevitable.*  The  only  evasion 
aUemj^tcdhj  J.  N.  B.  is  that  "  the  poor  man's  bed  was  evidently 
nothing  but  (Jxrahhatoii)  a  small  portable  couch  or  mattress, 
such  as  travellers  carried  about  with  them  !"  {p.  64.)  When 
my  friend  discovers  "  the  chapter  and  verse"  by  which  ''  krah- 
hato^  are  excepted  from  the  command  :  ''  Thus  saith  the 
Lord,  take  heed  to  yourselves  and  bear  no  burden  on  the 
Sabbath-day,"  his  suggestion  will  deserve  a  reply. 

So  studiously  did  Jesus  endeavor  to  wean  the  Jewish  vene- 
ration for  the  Sabbath,  so  studiousli/  did  he  seek  occasion 
practically  to  deny  its  sanctity,  that  it  would  appear  most  of 
his  miraculous  cures  were  performed  on  that  day;f  insomuch 
that  the  synagogue  ruler  "  said  unto  the  people,  there  are  six 
days  in  which  men  ought  to  '  work ;'  in  them,  therefore,  come 
and  be  healed,  and  not  on  the  Sabbath-day."  (LuJce  xiii.  14. )J; 
Publicly  and  studiousif/  did  Jesus  call  attention  to  the  fact  of 
his  doing  "  work"  on  that  day  :  he  did  not  "  speak  the  word," 

*  "He  requires  hun  to  do  that  on  the  Sabbath  which  was  contrary 
to  the  letter  of  the  Law,  to  show"  that  he  was  a  prophet,  who  by  their 
own  rules  had  power  to  require  ivhat  was  contrary/  to  the  ceremonial 
rest  of  the  Sabbath."     Whitby.   [Annotations,  in  loco.} 

f  "Though  he  frequently  judged  proper  to  conceal  his  miracles," 
says  Athanasius,  "yet  when  the  miracle  was  done  on  the  Sabbath, 
then  he  '  worked'  most  openly.  So  that  his  most  wonderful  miracles 
seem  to  have  been  wrought  on  the  Sabbath-day." 

%  Indeed  the  people  themselves  appear  generally  to  have  been  so 
far  regardful  of  the  sanctity  of  the  day,  as  to  delay  presenting  their 
diseased  friends  to  Jesus  till  the  setting  sun  announced  the  Sabbath 
fully  over.  (See  Mark  i.  32 ;  Luke  iv.  40.) 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.  137 

The  proclamation — "  I  tvork."  Testimony  of  John — decisive. 

but  he  "  made  clay,"  he  '*  anointed  the  eyes,"  he  ordered 
"  washing"  for  the  blind.  By  word  and  by  deed  he  solemnly 
proclaimed,  "I  work  !"  His  very  claim  of  being  "Lord  of 
the  Sabbath"  fully  establishes  the  fact  of  its  violation.  How- 
could  he  exercise  "  lordship"  over  the  institution  except  by 
resisting  its  control?  If  his  authority  were  his  vindication, 
it  certainly  could  not  have  been  a  vindication  of  his  obedience 
to  the  law  ! 

The  "  surprise"  formerly  expressed  at  this  "  charge"  of  vio- 
lation has  been  modified  by  my  friend,  to  the  exclusion  of 
those  "  Pharisaic  Jews" — "  who  had  murder  in  their  hearts." 
(p.  67.)  He  will  have  to  modify  it  still  further.  ''  That 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved'^  has  expressly  asserted  that  his 
Master  "broke  the  Sabbath !"-"  But  Jesus  answered  them, 
*  My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  /  work !'  Therefore  the 
Jews  sought  the  more  to  kill  him,  because  he  not  only  had 
broken  the  Sabbath,  but  said  also  that  God  was  his  Father, 
making  himself  equal  with  Grod."  (John  v.  17,  18.)  "  A 
Pharisaic  construction"  will  not  here  avail  my  friend.  His 
last  refuge  is  taken  away.  It  was  not  the  false  accusation  of 
"  making  himself  equal  with  God  -,"  it  was  not  the  false 
accusation  of  having  "  broken  the  Sabbath  3"  it  was  the 
avowed  and  unquestioned  truth,  in  both  cases,  that  stirred  up 
"  murder  in  the  hearts"  of  these  Sabbath-keeping  Pharisees. 
I  trust  that  this  solemn  declaration  will  be  received  as  a  satisfac- 
tory answer  to  the  former  query :  "  Can  any  man  in  his  sober 
senses  believe  such  a  proposition  ?"  (p.  16.)  A  far  more  startling 
question  presents  itself:  Where  would  J.  N.  B.  have  been 
found  in  that  day,  with  his  present  views  of  Sabbath  obligation  ? 
Holding  that  this  law  "  was  certainly  binding  on  the  Jews,  of 
whom  our  Lord  was  one  according  to  the  flesh,"*  and  that 
"  every  Jew,  including  Jesus  himself,  was  then  bound  by  it," 

*  "  Simply  as  man,  Christ  himself  was  '  made  under  the  law.'   [Gal. 
iv.  4.)  But  as  the  Messiah,  who  is  also  son  of  God,  he  has  power  over 

12* 


138  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

A  solemn  consideration.  Archbishop  Whately's  "  indorsement." 

I  see  not  how  be  could  possibly  escape  the  conclusion:  "This 
man  is  not  of  God  because  he  keepeth  not  the  Sabbath-day  V 
{John  ix.  16.)*  In  vain  would  "  the  Son  of  man"  claim  to  be 
^'  Lord  of  the  Sabbath.'^  By  my  friend's  account,  he  could 
only  be  Lord  of  the  construction  !  (p.  64.)  If  so,  how  sub-' 
versive  that  construction  !  I  still  expect,  however,  from  the 
candor  of  my  friend,  an  admission  that  the  Proposition  under 
proof  is  not  "  calumnious,"  and  that  it  is  not  *'  false  !" 

J.  N.  B.  "  acquits"  Paley  of  having  indorsed  this  "  Third 
Proposition."  (^p.  67.)  Considering  that  this  writer  does  not 
even  advert  to  the  subject,  this  acquittal  is  very  liberal,  and 
very — -just  !  If,  however,  my  friend  attaches  any  importance 
to  the  indorsement  of  so  irrefragable  a  fact,  by  a  "professedly 
Christian  writer,"  I  am  happy  to  present  him  with  that  of 
"  one  of  the  first  scholars  and  soundest  thinkers  in  Great 
Britain" — Archbishop  Whately  :  "  It  will  be  plainly  seen," 
says  he,  "  on  a  careful  examination  of  the  accounts  given  by 
the  evangelists,  that  Jesus  did  decidedly  and  avowedly  violate 
the  Sahbatli ;  on  purpose,  as  it  should  seem,  to  assert  in  this 
way  his  divine  authority." — {^Essays,  No.  v.  note  A.  On  the 
Sahhath.^ 

IV.  Tlte  silence  of  the  New  Testament  Scrij^tures. 

The  solitary  passage  previously  quoted  by  my  friend  (1  Tim. 
i.  9 — 11),  to  impeach  the  "  Fourth  Proposition,"  is  still  re- 
tained, (p.  68.)  At  his  request,  I  have  given  the  chapter  a 
careful  and  repeated  examination,  and  with  the  assistance  of 

all  these  outicard  ordinances.  .  .  He  may  say  when  the  'shadow' 
shall  give  place  to  the  substance."  Trench.  {Notes  on  the  31iracles: 
chap.  19.) 

■^  The  syllogism  is  simple,  and  invulnerable  ! 

Minor  premise : — Jesus  "  not  only  had  broken  the  Sabbath,  but  said 
also  that  God  was  his  Father."  (A  Bible  asserted  fact !) 

3Iajor  premise : — "If  he  did  thus  violate  it,  he  was  guilty  of  sin  P^ 
(J.  N.  B.jP.  16.) 

Conclusion: — Therefore  "this  man  is  not  of  God T 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.        139 

Opposite  conclusions  from  1  Tim.  i.  The  ivhole  Law  under  cli!-~cussion. 

the  best  expositors  within  my  reach.  Still  I  can  see  nothing 
in  the  passage  of  what  appears  to  J.  N.  B.  so  obvious, — a  re- 
ference to  the  Decalogue ;  nor  anything  to  warrant  his  conclu- 
sions :  "1.  That  the  Decalogue  is  recognized  as  the  moral 
standard  ;"  and  "  2.  That  Sahhath-hreaTcers  are  certainly  in- 
cluded among  *  the  ungodly  and  profane.'  "  It  is  perhaps  a 
singular  fact }  but  the  more  I  have  considered  the  text,  the 
more  directly  oppo^te  have  been  my  convictions  on  both  these 
points.  Still,  as  I  have  no  wish  to  deprive  my  friend  of  its 
just  force,  I  submit  it  to  the  candid  and  intelligent,  without 
argument.  I  doubt  not  he  has,  in  this  quotation,  done  the 
best  possible  ;  but  I  see  no  reason  for  modifying  my  first  re- 
ception of  it. 

V.    Tlie  formal  Abrogation  of  the  Sahhatli  at  Jerusalem. 

The  original  objection  to  my  ''  Fifth"  conclusion  was  that 
tlie  controversy  before  the  Jerusalem  Council  was  "  restricted 
to  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law."  {p.  18.)  The  fourth  com- 
mandment, being  clearly  proved  to  be  a  '^  Jewish  ceremonial 
law,"  falls  necessarily  within  the  admitted  consideration  of 
the  Apostolic  convention,  and  consequently  (as  before  re- 
marked) within  the  class  of  observances  rejected  as  unneces- 
sary for  the  Grentile  Christian. 

To  meet,  however,  the  entire  question  involved,  and  to 
place  the  investigation  on  its  broadest  grounds,  I  showed,  by 
the  very  proceedings  of  the  council,  that  the  great  subject 
presented  for  adjudication  ''was  evidently  the  wliole  'Law  of 
Moses,'  and  the  extent  of  its  obligation."  My  friend,  after 
assenting  to  this  by  the  emphatic  "Precisely  so"  (p.  71), 
seems  desirous  of  excepting  "  the  Decalogue  !"  {p.  73.)  To 
which  I  simply  reply,  that  the  Mosaic  law  is  never  once 
alluded  to  in  the  New  Testament,  as  excluding  the  Decalogue.* 

*  The  application  of  Bistop  Middleton's  learned  canons  of  criti- 
cism respecting  the  use  of  the  Greek  article  settles  this  qnestion  deci- 
sively. My  friend  J.  N.  B.  tinds  it  convenient  to  his  argument  some- 
times  to  wholly  exclude   the  Decalocjue  from  the  "  Law  of  Moses" 


140  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  Decalogue — "  distinctive  of  Judaism." 

The  texts  he  has  cited  (Acts.  xxi.  20 — 25;  Beh.  x.  28)  are 

most  certainly  not  exceptions  to  this  statement. 

In  the  present  instance,  it  may  be  observed  that  the  prac- 
tical controversy  being  admitted  by  J.  N.  B.  to  "include 
what  was  distinctive  of  Judaism'^  (p.  73),  the  Decalogue — as 
a  code — was  actually  as  ''distinctive"  as  any  other  portion  of 
the  Jewish  law.*  "  Throughout  all  history,  we  discover  no 
trace  of  '  the  Decalogue,'  among  the  nations  of  antiquity.^' 
Nay,  two  of  its  provisions  (the  second  and  fourth  command- 
ments) were  unknown  to  the  moral  law  of  the  Romans. f  Of 
these  two  ''  distinctive"  precepts,  the  former  was  expressly 
enjoined  upon  the  Gentile  Church  by  the  Council,  while  the 
latter  was  as  expressly  rejected  by  its  decisive  silence.  Two 
other  prohibitions  of  the  Mosaic  law  (Exod.  xxii.  16;  and 
Levit.  xvii.  12)  were  conjoined  with  this  one  selected  from  the 
Decalogue.  The  "  seventh  commandment"  I  do  not  conceive 
to  have  been  involved  in  this  re-enactment  any  more  than  the 
sixth  commandment,  or  the  eighth.  Of  these  three  require- 
ments, gleaned  from  the  ''  wIloIc  '  Law  of  Moses,'  "  two  are 
in  modern  ethics  ''moral"  precepts,  the  other  a  "positive"  one. 
I  am  "  compelled  to  admit,"  says  J.  N.  B.,  "  that  the  obvious 
reason  why  these  two  points  of  the  moral  law  were  at  all  re- 
ferred to,  was  that  they  were  the  only  ones  likely  to  be  trans- 

(see  pp.  18,  73),  and  at  other  times  to  exclude  all  but  the  Decalogue! 
(seep.  58.) 

^  "  The  Decalogue  was  but  part  of  the  Jeivish  law,  if  you  consider 
it  not  as  written  in  Nature,  but  in  tables  of  stone ;  and  the  Jewish  law 
was  given  as  a  law  to  no  other  people  but  to  them.  So  that  even  in 
Moses's  days  it  bound  no  other  nations  of  the  world.  Therefore  it 
needed  not  any  abrogation  to  the  Gentiles,  but  a  declaration  that  it 
did  not  bind  them." — (Baxter's  Works,  vol.  iii.  On  the  Lord's  Day, 
chap,  vii.) 

f  Thus,  the  Roman  Emperor  .Julian  (as  has  already  been  noticed) 
expressly  mentions  these  two  precepts  as  peculiar  to  the  Jewish  law ; 
and  quotes  the  remaining  precepts  of  the  Decalogue  as  recognized  and 
enforced  by  all  nations.  (See  ante,  p.  118.) 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.        141 

No  Gentile  Sabbath:  and  no  Sabbath  imposed  by  tlio  Jerusalem  Council. 

gressed  by  those  just  emancipated  from  the  Roman  Paganism/' — 
"  not  perceiving  that  it  ruins  my  argument."  (^.  73.)  I  con- 
fess that  this  is  strictly  true.  So  far  from  it,  I  perceive  that 
the  "admission"  is  the  very  hulwark  of  my  argument.  It 
was  precisely  because  these  "two  points"  were  not  enjoined  by 
the  Fay  an  moral  law  that  their  special  enactment  was  neces- 
sary. Though  not  probably  individually  controverted  before 
the  Jerusalem  Council,  they  were  as  really  an  integral  ^^ part 
of  the  Jaw  in  dispute"  (that  is,  as  really  "  distinctive  of 
Judaism"  for  the  persons  addressed)  as  circumcision  itself  !* 
My  friend,  as  a  classical  scholar,  must  be  fully  aware  of  this. 

"What  then  is  the  relation  of  the  fourth  commandment  to  the 
Gentile  Christian  ?  The  perspicuous  answer  is  contained  in 
two  irrefutable  propositions:  1st.  The  "Sabbath"  most  cer- 
tainly was  not  obligatory  by  any  Gentile  law  (my  friend's 
"  mistake  in  fact,"  notwithstanding),  and  2dly,  the  "  Sabbath" 
as  certainly  was  not  made  obligatory  by  the  Jerusalem  edict. 
The  Roman  converts,  after  learning  that  but  three  things  of 
"the  law  of  Mpses"  had  been  enjoined  upon  them  as  "neces- 
sary things,"  would  at  once  have  rejected  as  an  absurdity  any 
imposition  of  the  3Iosaic  Sabbath  upon  their  consciences.  As 
well  might  the  obligation  of  Circumcision  have  been  asserted. 

A  PersiuSj  a  Martial,  or  a  Seneca  would  have  asked  in 
astonishment :  "  How  could  the  Council  possibly  omit  an 
observance  that  we  regard  so  peculiarly  '  distinctive  of  Juda- 
ism,' and  that  was  therefore  one  of  the  most  prominent  of 
those  in  controversy,  if  it  was  intended  still  to  be  a  'necessary 
thing  V  "  My  friend  would  find  it  difficult  to  give  a  satis- 
factory reply.     He  has  not  yet  "done  with  the  Fifth  Proposi- 

*  Grotius  {Comment,  in  Act.  xv.  20),  CuRCELLiEus  [Diatrih.  siqyr. 
laud.  c.  10),  and  Salmasius  [De  trapezit.  fcenor.),  all  agree  that  the 
reason  why  these  three  restrictions  and  no  others,  were  imposed  by 
the  apostles,  -was  that  they  were  the  only  ones  judged  necessary  for 
observance,  which  admitted  of  dispute  between  the  Jews  and  the 
Gentiles,  from  the  diversity  of  their  systems. 


142  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

An  Antinomian  objection.  Paul's  decisive  reply. 

tion."  (p.  76.)  He  must  either  frankly  admit  its  truth, — or, 
as  the  only  alternative,  he  must  point  out  the  "  chapter  and 
verse"  which  re-enacts  the  fourth  commandment  for  Gen- 
tiles !  One  of  these  courses  I  have  a  right  to  demand  from  a 
candid  disputant. 

But  it  is  here  advanced  by  my  friend,  as  a  comprehensive 
and  conclusive  objection,  that  if  the  Sabbath  law  be  assumed 
to  be  abolished,  because  not  included  among  the  "  necessary 
things,''  by  the  same  argument,  ''all  the  ten  commandments, 
except  the  first  and  seventh,  are  abrogated.  That  is  to  say, 
profaneness  towards  God,  disobedience  to  parents,  lying,  rob- 
bery, and  murder,  are  no  longer  sins  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation !  And  this,  then,  is  the  '  liberty  wherewith  Christ 
has  made  us  free  !'  "  {p.  74.) 

I  am  bound  to  suppose  the  objection  a  candid  one,  and  not 
a  mere  rhetorical  flourish ;  though  I  must  confess  it  is  one 
well  calculated  to  surprise.  If  this  appears  to  J.  N.  B.  a  fair 
inference  from  the  premises,  I  can  only  lament  that,  in  his 
application  of  principles  which  are  incontrovertible  gospel 
truths^  he  should  fraternize  so  marvellously  with  those  Anti- 
nomians,  whose  doctrines  he  formerly  pronounced  "  most 
frightful."  {p.  18.)  To  such  reasoners,  I  know  of  no  more 
pertinent  nor  decisive  reply  than  that  of  Paul  :  "What  then? 
Shall  we  sin,  because  '  loe  are  not  under  the  Laiv,'  but  under 
grace  ?  God  forbid  !  Know  ye  not,  that  to  whom  ye  yield 
yourselves  servants  to  obey,  his  servants  ye  are,  to  whom  ye 
obey?  ....  Wherefore,  my  brethren,  ye  also  are  become 
dead  to  the  Law — hy  the  hody  of  Christ ;  that  ye  should  be 
married  to  another,  even  to  him  who  is  raised/rom  the  dead." 
"  Ye  are  not  under  the  Law,  but  under  Grace." 

I  might  remind  J.  N.  B.  that  the  Gentiles  already  had  a 
law  more  binding  than  the  Decalogue,  prohibiting  these  crimes 
(Eom.  ii.  14);  and  that  to  re-enact  it  on  an  occasion  like  this, 
when  it  was  not  even  disputed,  would  have  been  a  simple  ab- 
surdity.    I  might  convict  him  by  his  own  language,  that  the 


MR.  TAYLOR*  S  SECOND  REPLY.  143 

The  repeal  of  "  all  the  ten  commandments" — indififerent. 

burden  complained  of  by  the  Gentiles  "  can  only  include  what 
was  distinctive  of  Judaism.  It  cannot  include  that  law  of  God 
which  He  has  promised  to  'put  into  the  hearts'  of  his  people.'' 
(p.  73.) 

And  suppose  it  were  conceded  that  "all  the  ten  command- 
ments, not  excepting  the  first  and  seventh,  are  abrogated  !" 
What  then  ?  Can  this  repeal  a  law,  thousands  of  years  older  ? 
Can  the  absolute  destruction  of  the  Mosaic  tables  disturb  "one 
jot  or  one  tittle"  of  that  code  inscribed  by  "the  Spirit  of  the 
living  God,  not  in  tables  of  stone,  but  in  fleshy  tables  of  the 
heart  ?"  Alas  !  "  to  what  absurd  results  will  wrong  theories 
lead  intelligent  men  !"  Is  my  friend  so  hopelessly  "entangled 
in  the  yoke  of  bondage"  to  Sinai,  that  he  can  see  no  other 
"stand-point"  in  the  universe  excepting  "frightful"  Anti- 
nomianism  ?  Has  he  never  read  that  his  vaunted  Decalogue 
was  a  "ministration  of  death" — "added  because  of  transgres- 
sions, till  the  Seed  should  come" — "  the  mediator  of  a  better 
covenant?"  That  this  covenant  of  Horeb,  so  far  from  being 
"faultless,"  "  made  nothing  perfect,"  and,  therefore,  "  decayed" 
and  "vanished  away"  before  a  grander  code,  and  "the  bringing 
in  of  a  better  hope  ?"  Is  it  necessary  to  remind  one  who  has 
studied  the  Bible  for  "  thirty  years,"  that  the  moral  precepts 
of  the  New  Testament  include  everything  valuable  in  the  old, 
and  much  more?  That,  there  being  "made  of  necessity  a 
change  of  the  Law,"  there  is  "  a  disannulling  of  the  command- 
ment going  before,"  and  those  "no  longer  under  that  law," 
are  consequently  ^' not  icithout  law  to  God,  but  under  the 
law  to  Christ?"  That  they  "are  his  disciples  indeed" — not 
" who  desire  to  be  under  the  law"  of  Sinai — but  who  "con- 
tinue in  his  word,"  and  "keep  his  commandments?" 

Alas !  how  difierent  are  the  conclusions  of  the  apostle,  from 
the  Antinomian  reasonings  of  J.  N.  B. !  How  irreconcilably 
oj^posite  their  "  stand-points  !"  My  friend  appears  not  yet  to 
have  learned  that. his  whole  Christian  duty  is  to  "fulfil  the  law 
of  Christ;"  and  that,  if  the  Decalogue  "was  given  by  Moses, 


144  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 


The  Decalogue  dead  as  a  "  rule  of  obligation." 


grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesiis/^  This  is  "  the  liberty  where- 
with Christ  hath  made  us  free;"  even  a  '^perfect  law  of 
liberty  V 

If  that  ^^ministration  of  death,  written  and  engraven  in 
stones/'  however  glorious  once,  is  now  completely  ^^  done  awaif^ 
(2  Cor.  iii.  7);  if  "now  we  are  delivered  from  the  law,  that 
being  rZeac?/" — (even  that  code  which  said  "Thou  shalt  not 
covet,"  Rom.  vii.  6,  7) — then  has  its  authority  utterly  and 
forever  ceased.  It  is  not  as  a  "  covenant  of  life"  (p.  18),  it  is 
not  as  a  "ground  of  justification,"  that  it  has  become  incom- 
petent; for  this,  Paul  tells  us,  it  ever  was.  {Rom.  iii.  20; 
Gal.  iii.  11,  21.)  It  is  as  a  "ride  of  moral  obligation"  that 
the  Decalogue  has  become  henceforth  irrevocably  "dead!"* 

*  "  Now  let  us  adopt  the  obvious  interpretation  of  the  Apostle's 
•words,"  says  Whatbly,  "and  admit  the  entire  abrogation,  according 
to  him,  of  the  Mosaic  law ;  concluding  that  it  was  originally  designed 
for  the  Israelites  alone,  and  that  its  dominion  over  them  ceased  when 
the  Gospel  system  commenced  ;  and  we  shall  find  that  this  concession 
does  not  go  a  step  towards  establishing  the  Antinomian  conclusion, 
that  moral  conduct  is  not  required  of  Christians.  For  it  is  evident 
that  the  natural  distinctions  of  right  and  wrong  which  conscience 
points  out,  must  remain  where  they  were.  These  distinctions,  not 
having  been  introduced  by  the  Mosaic  law,  cannot,  it  is  evident,  be 
overthrown  by  its  removal.  .  .  .  Before  the  comiuandments  to  do  no 
murder,  and  to  honor  one's  parents,  had  been  delivered  from  Mount 
Sinai,  Cain  was  cursed  for  killing  his  brother,  and  Ham  for  dishonor- 
ing his  father ;  which  crimes,  therefore,  could  not  cease  to  be  such, 
at  least  as  any  consequence  of  the  abolition  of  that  law.  Nor  need 
it  be  feared  that  to  proclaim  an  exemption  from  the  Mosaic  law  should 
leave  men  without  any  moral  guide,  and  at  a  loss  to  distinguish  right 
and  wrong ;  since,  after  all,  the  light  of  reason  is  that  to  which  every 
man  must  be  left,  in  the  interpretation  of  that  very  law.  So  far,  con- 
sequently, from  the  moral  precepts  of  the  Law  being  to  the  Christian 
necessary  as  a  guide  to  his  judgment  in  determining  what  is  right  and 
wrong,  on  the  contrary,  this  moral  judgment  is  necessary  to  determine 
what  are  the  moral  precepts  of  Moses.  ...  It  is  not  because  they 
are  commandments  of  the  Mosaic  law  that  he  is  bound  to  obey  them, 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.        145 

The  Chri.-tian  t^tandard.  A  false  issue  attempted. 

"  Wc  are  not  under  the  Law."  ''Now  we  know  that  what 
tbiniis  soever  the  Law  saith,  it  saith  to  them  who  are  under  the 
Law."  He,  therefore,  who,  to  sustain  a  Christian  duty,  is 
driven  to  some  Exod.  xx.,  or  Levit.  xix.,  or  Deut.  v.,  may 
well  suspect  himself  of  being  wnse  above  that  which  is  written. 

J,  N.  B.  has  attempted  a  kind  of  diversion  (p.  76),  by  cit- 
ing a  few  Patristic  writers  (including  the  apocryphal  "Bar- 
nabas"*), to  prove  that  Sunday  was  commemorated  by  the 
early  Christians. f  A  single  word  is  sufficient  reply  : —  Wholly 
irrelevant!  This  point  has  never  been  disputed.  The  ques- 
tion under  discussion  has  no  reference  whatever  to  a  icorship- 

but  because  they  are  moral.  Indeed,  there  are  numerous  precepts — in 
the  laws,  for  instance,  of  Solon  and  Mahomet — from  a  conformity  to 
which  no  Christian  can  pretend  to  exemption  ;  yet  no  one  would  say 
that  a  part  of  the  Koran  is  binding  on  Christians."  [Essays  on  Paul. 
Essay  v.) 

■^  Although  this  Epistle  most  probably  belongs  to  the  second  century 
rather  than  to  the  first,  whatever  historical  interest  or  doctrinal 
authority  attaches  to  it,  must  be  claimed  decidedly  by  the  Anti-sabba- 
tarian.  While  there  is  nothing  in  it  which  favors  Sabbatarianism  (even 
by  implication),  it  contains  the  following  very  explicit  passage : 
"  'Your  new-moons  and  Sabbaths,  the  calling  of  assemblies,  I  cannot 
away  with  ;  it  is  iniquity,  even  the  solemn  meetings  ;  your  new-moons 
and  appointed  feasts  my  soul  hateth.'  These  things,  therefore,  hath  God 
abolished,  that  the  new  law  of  our  Lord  .Jesus  Christ,  which  is  without 
the  yoke  of  any  such  necessity,  might  have  the  spiritual  offering  of 
men  themselves."     Barxab.  ii.  8.  {Wake's  Translation.) 

f  "  The  first  Christians  assembled  for  the  purposes  of  divine  wor- 
ship, in  private  houses,  in  caves,  and  in  vaults.  Their  meetings  were 
on  the  first  day  of  the  week ;  and  in  some  places  they  assembled  also 
upon  the  seventh,  which  was  celebrated  by  the  Jews.  Many  also 
observed  the  fourth  day  of  the  week,  on  which  Christ  was  betrayed  ; 
and  the  sixth,  which  was  the  day  of  his  crucifixion.  The  hour  of  the 
day  appointed  for  holding  these  religious  assemblies  varied  according 
to  different  times  and  circumstances  of  the  church  ;  but  it  was  ge7ie- 
rally  in  the  evening  after  sunset,  or  in  the  morning  before  the  dawn." 
MosHEiM.  [Church  History,  cent,  ii,  part  ii.  chap.  iv.  sec.  8.) 
13 


146  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

An  improper  coloring  of  evidence.        Church  History— anti-sabhatarian. 

day  ;  it  is  the  Scriptural  authority  for  a  "  Sabbath-day/^ — a 
dsLj  Dlvineli/  appointed,  m  which  "thou  shalt  not  do  any 
workP^^  Why  then  has  my  friend  ventured  upon  this  false 
issue  ? 

When,  however,  suddenly  reverting  from  this,  he  drops  the 
point  really  attested,  and  assuming  the  true  question  as  there- 
by confirmed,  complacently  sums  up :  "  The  only  thing  '  burden- 
some' would  be  to  quote  all  their  various  expressions  of  devout 
recognition  of  the  Christian  Sabbath"  (p.  76),  he  is  chargeable 
with  coloring  his  evidence  !  Not  one  of  his  witnesses  says  a 
word  in  "recognition  of  the  Sabbath;"  and  almost  all  of  them 
do  testify  clearly  and  strongly  against  the  obligation  of  the 
Sabbath!  Let  him  assume  the  slight  "burden"  of  quoting 
one  of  the  early  "  Fathers,"  recognizing  the  obligation  of  the 
fourth  commandment,  or  expressly  designating  Sunday  "  the 
Sabbath,"  and  he  will  have  contributed  something  in  support 
of  his  assumption.  Such  an  appeal  he  has  very  prudently 
avoided.  Such  an  authority  (in  "  devout  recognition  of  the 
Sabbath")  he  will  find  it  a  truly  "  burdensome"  task  to  discover. 

The  true  "  Scriptural  view  is  confirmed  in  the  clearest  man- 
ner by  Ecclesiastical  History."  The  leading  Fathers  all 
speak  of  the  fourth  commandment  as  abrogated.  As  the 
Bishop  of  Lincoln  remarks  {Account  of  Justin  Martyr,  p,  96, 
97):  "The  admission  of  Gentiles  into  the  Church  was 
quickly  followed  by  the  controversy  respecting  the  necessity  of 
observing  the  Mosaic  ritual.  .  .  .  One  consequence  of  which 
was  that  the  converts,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  who  believed 
that  the  injunctions  of  the  ceremonial  law  were  no  longer  ob- 
ligatory, soon  ceased  to  observe  the  Sabbath." 

EusEBius — the  father  of  Church  History — affirms  the  early 
Christian  practice,  most  decisively  :  he  says  that,  as  the  pa- 

■^'  "It  is  evident  that,  in  the  lirovisions  of  the  fourth  commandment, 
God  did  not  enjoin  the  exercise  of  any  religious  devotion,  but  merely 
a  corporeal  rest.'"  Spencer.   (De  Leg.  Ilcb.  lib.  i.  cap.  iv.  sect.  9.) 


MR.  Taylor's  second  RErLY.        147 

EusEBius.  Socrates.  The  Protestant  Reformers. 

triarchs  "did  not  regard  circumcision,  nor  observe  the  Sabbath, 
neither  do  ice.  .  .  .  Such  things  as  these  do  not  belong  to 
Christians,"     (^Ilist.  Eccles.  lib.  i.  cap.  4.) 

The  Church  historian  Socrates  Scholasticus,  in  treating  of 
this  Jerusalem  Council,  observes  :  "  Notwithstanding  there  are 
some  who,  disregarding  this,  .  .  .  contend  about  holy  days,  as 
if  it  were  for  their  lives;  they  invert  the  commands  of  God, 
and  make  laws  for  themselves,  not  valuing  the  decree  of  the 
Apostles  ;  nor  do  they  consider  that  they  practise  the  contrary 
to  those  things  which  ^seemed  good'  to  God."  (^Ilist.  Ecd.  lib. 
V.  cap.  22.) 

Our  most  eminent  Reformers,  Luther,  Melancthon, 
Cranmer,  Tyndale,  Calvin,  &c.,  all  agree  that  the  fourth 
commandment  is  not  obligatory  upon  Christians.  In  the 
celebrated  "Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith,"  drawn  up  by 
Luther,  Melancthon,  and  other  distinguished  "  Protestants," 
it  is  explicitly  held:  "The  Scripture  has  abrogated  the  Sah- 
hath,  teaching  that  all  Mosaic  ceremonies  may  be  omitted  since 
the  gospel  has  been  preached."  Calvin,  in  his  "  Institutes," 
equally  explicitly  announces  that  the  fourth  commandment 
"  i^rts  aholished  with  the  rest  of  the  figures  at  the  advent  of 
Christ."  It  would,  indeed,  be  "burdensome  to  quote  all  their 
various  expressions  of  devout  rejection  of  the  Sabbath."  It 
is  clear  (as  strong-minded  Bunyan  maintains  in  his  Essay  on 
the  Sahhath),  that,  "  when  the  service  or  shadow  and  cere- 
monies of  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  fell,  the  seventh-day  Sah- 
ia^/t/eZnikewise."   (quest,  v.)* 

*  J.  N.  B.  is  evidently  reluctant  to  part  company  with  the  illustrious 
author  of  "  The  Pilgrim's  Progress,"  and  says,  with  admirable  gravity, 
"he  really  is  on  my  ground,  as  any  one  may  see  who  reads  him  with 
proper  attention."  [p.  70.)  Since  Bunyan  founds  his  able  argument 
for  a  Christian  worship-day  on  the  unco7iditional  abolition  of  the  fourth 
cuinmandmcnt,  if  "  he  really  is  on  my  friend's  ground,"  I  tender  .J.  N.  B. 
my  most  hearty  congratulation  on  his  adoption  of  the  true  "  Scriptural 
view."     I  expect  him  accordingly  to  indorse  the  following :   "  As  for 


148  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Spencer.  The  Epistolary  allusions  uniformly  Anti  sahljatarian. 

'^  From  all  these  things/'  says  Spencer,  "  it  is  most  clearly 
apparent  that  the  fourth  commandment  was  adapted  solely  to 
the  circumstances  of  the  Mosaic  economy,  and  bound  the 
Jews  alone,  held  under  the  tutorship  of  the  law  ;  and  that 
they  are  egregiously  (I  will  not  say  ridiculously)  mistaken, 
who  maintain  that  we  are  bound  to  a  Clivhtlan  Sahhath  (as  it 
is  called),  wholly  devoted  to  rest  and  the  duties  of  religion, 
by  the  authority  of  the  fourth  commandment  !"  (Z^e  Leg. 
Ileh.  Rit.  lib.  i.  cap.  iv.  sect.  13.) 

W.  B.  T. 


PART  IV. 

"  Tell  me,  ye  that  desire  to  be  under  '  the  Law,'  do  ye  not  hear  the 
Law  ?  For  it  is  written  that  Abraham  had  two  sons ;  the  one  by  a 
bond-maid,  the  other  by  a  free  woman." — Galatiaxs  iv.  21,  22. 

"  Israel,  which  followed  after  the  Law  of  righteousness,  hath  not 
attained  to  the  Law  of  righteousness." — Romans  ix.  31. 

"We  which  have  believed  do  enter  into  resty — (Hebrews  iv.  3.) 
"For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  Law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  that 
belicveth." — Romans  x.  4. 


VI.   The 'provuioRol  nature   iiniformli/ ascrihed  to  the  Sah- 
hath in  the  sichsequent  Epistles. 

Closely  connected  with  the  preceding  "  Proposition,"  and 

the  seventh-day  Sabbath,  that,  as  we  see,  is  gone  to  its  grave  with  the 

signs  and  shadows  of  the  Old  Testament The  first  day  of  the 

week  is  the  Christian's  market-day  ;  that  which  they  so  solemnly  trade 
in  for  soul  provision  for  all  the  week  following.  This  is  the  day  that 
they  gather  manna  in.  To  be  sure,  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  is  not 
that ;  for  of  old  the  people  of  God  could  never  find  manna  on  that 

day I  conclude   that   those    Gentile   professors  that   adhei-e 

thereto  are  Jewified,  legalized,  and  so  far  gone  back  from  the  authority 
of  God,  who /rom  such  bondages  has  set  his  churches  free." — [Essay  on 
the  Sabbath,  ques.  v.) 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.        149 

No  possible  evasion  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colnssicnis. 

•irresistibly  confirming  it,  is  the  view  taken  of  the  Sabbath  in  the 
Epistles  written  after  the  decision  of  the  Jerusalem  Council. 
It  is  a  striking  and  instructive  fact  that,  while  these  Scriptures 
repeatedly  refer  to  the  Sabbath,  they  do  not  once  refer  to  it  in 
commendation  of  its  observance  or  in  recognition  of  its  authori- 
ty ;  and  they  do  distinctly  and  uniformly  refer  to  it  as  a  ful- 
filled and  evanescent  symbol. 

"  It  may  seem  a  waste  of  time  and  strength,"  says  J.  N.  B., 
^'to  examine  this  last  Proposition  minutely,  after  what  has 
been  said  already."  (p.  77.)  I  agree  with  him  in  thinking 
that  every  efibrt  to  dislodge  this  last  and  keystone  wedge  in 
my  fabric  of  ''Propositions"  will  indeed  prove  '' a  ivaste  of 
time  and  strength  I"  From  such  a  conviction,  no  doubt,  he 
has  permitted  it  to  stand  almost  without  an  attempt  to  con- 
trovert it.  His  Reply  betrays  throughout  its  conscious  weak- 
ness. 

One  of  the  most  perspicuous  and  decisive  of  these  scriptural 
references  is  that  adduced  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  : 
^*  Sabbath  days  are  a  shadow  of  things  to  come  ;  but  the  hodi/  is 
of  Christ."  The  "  rest"  of  the  fourth  commandment  (com- 
memorating a  release  from  bondage)  was  but  a  "  provisional 
type"  of  the  succeedmg  dispensation,  whose  founder  embodied 
the  true  Sabbatism  into  which  believers  enter.  The  resources, 
of  evasion  are  here  utterly  at  fault.  No  effort  "  more  sub- 
stantial than  assertion"  has  yet  been  made  to  show  that  the 
word  "  Sabbath"  does  not  here  "refer  to  the  Sabbath  !"  And 
none  can  he  !  The  only  glance  afforded  at  this  stubborn  text, 
in  my  friend's  Pteply,  is,  "  We  have  searched  for  it  [the  'pro- 
visional' character  of  the  Sabbath]  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colos- 
sians, and  it  is  not  there!"  {p.  79.)  Strange,  that  the  very 
same  sight  which  could  so  clearly  discern  "  Sabbath"  in  1  Tim. 
i.  9,  can  discover  no  trace  of  it  in  Col.  ii.  16 !  Plow  inex- 
plicable is  the  phenomenon  of  vision  !  The  Christian  Fathers 
saw  "Sabbath-symbolism"  in  this  passage;  but  my  friend  can- 
not.    Luther  and  Calvin  both  saw  it  clearly  there ;  but  to 

13* 


150  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 


The  literal  application,  enforced  by  Milton:  Baxter:  I>ARRO^Y:  Buntan. 


him  it  is  invisible.  Paley  and  Whately  saw  it  there  :  but 
to  him,  alas  !  "  it  is  not  there  I" 

Says  Milton  :  "'  Whoever  denies  that  under  the  words  of 
the  Apostle,  '  in  respect  of  an  holy  day,  or  of  the  new-moon, 
or  of  the  Sahhath  days,'  the  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  command- 
ment is  comprehended,  may  as  well  deny  that  it  is  spoken  of 
in  2  Cliron.  ii.  4;  or  viii.  13;  or  xxxi.  3;  from  which  pas- 
sages the  words  of  Paul  seem  to  be  taken.''  (^Clirist.  Doctrine^ 
Book  ii.  chap.  7.) 

Says  Baxter  unhesitatingly,  this  passage  ^' meant  the 
weekly  Jewish  Sabbath."  {LonVs  Daij,  chap,  v.)  And  he 
justly  reproves  those  who  would  presume  to  except  it  from  the 
apostle's  rejection.  ''This  is  to  limit  it  without  any  proof 
from  the  word  of  God.  When  Grod  speaks  of  'Sabbaths'  in 
general  without  exception,  what  is  man  that  he  should  put  ex- 
ceptions without  any  proof  of  authority  from  God  ?  By  such 
boldness  we  may  pervert  all  his  laws.  Yea,  when  it  was  the 
weekly  Sabbath  which  was  then  principally  known  by  the 
name  of  the  Sabbath,  it  is  yet  greater  boldness,  without  proof 
to  exclude  the  principal  part  from  whence  the  rest  did  receive 
the  name  !"  {On  the  Lord's  -Dcij/,  chap,  vii.)  "  What  violence 
men's  own  wits  must  use  in  denying  the  'evidence  of  so  plain 
•a  text !  Their  reason  that  he  saith  not  '  Sabbath,'  but  '  Sab- 
baths,' is  against  themselves ;  the  plural  number  being  most 
comprehensive,  and  other  Sabbaths  receiving  their  name  from 
this."  {Ibid.  Ajypendixj  ch.  i.) 

Says  Barrow  :  "  St.  Paul  himself  is  express  in  discharging 
Christians  from  the  observation  thereof,  and  in  conjoining  it 
with  other  ceremonial  observances,  whose  nature  was  merely 
symbolical,  and  whose  design  was  to  continue  no  longer  than 
till  the  real  substance  of  that  which  they  represented  came 
into  full  force  and  practice. —  Col.  ii.  16,  17."  {Works,  vol. 
i.  Exposition  of  Decalogue.^ 

Says  BuNYAN,  Paul  "  distinctly  singleth  out  this  Seventh 
day  as  that  which  was  a  noble  shadow,  a  most  exact  shadow." 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.  151 

Macknight.  The  Fourth  Commandment  exclusively  referred  to. 

"  As  he  serveth  other  holy  days,  he  serveth  the  Sabbath  :  he 
gives  a  liberty  to  believers  to  refuse  the  observation  of  it,  and 
commands  that  no  man  should  judge  against  them  for  their 
so  doing.  And,  as  you  read,  the  reason  of  his  so  doing  is  be- 
cause the  '  body,'  the  substance,  is  come.  Christ,  saith  he,  is 
the  lodtj.  Nor  hath  the  apostle,  one  would  think,  left  any 
hole  out  at  which  men's  inventions  could  get  :  but  man  has 
sought  out  many;  and  so,  many  will  he  use  I'"^  (^Essaij  on  the 
Sahbath,  ques.  iv.) 

Says  Macknigiit,  commenting  on  this  text :  "  The  ichoh 
Law  of  Moses  being  abrogated  by  Christ,  Christians  are  under 
no  obligation  to  observe  any  of  the  Jewish  holidays — not  even 
the  seventh-day  Sabbath."  {Com.  on  Epi&tles,  Col.  ii.  IG.) 

If  my  friend  desires  a  broader  issue  than  that  already  pre- 
sented, it  may  be  confidently  asserted  that  the  term  ''  Sabbath 
days"  in  Col.  ii.  16,  not  only  inchules  "the  Sabbath  of  the 
Decalogue"  (which  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  the  argument), 
but  that  it  excludes  all  other  Sabbaths  if — that  it  refers  to 
"  the  seventh  day"  of  the  fourth  commandment,  and  to  nothing 
else  !  1.  The  word  has  no  other  meaning  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment.J     2.  This  is  always  its  meaning  when  associated  with 

*  "  The  passage  quoted  from  Colossians  refers  not  to  the  Sabbath 
of  the  Decalogue,  but  only  to  the  ceremonial  fasts  and  festivals  of  the 
Jews."— J.  N.  B.   {ly.  18.) 

*«  With  what  astonishment  would  Paul,  if  he  were  now  among  U3 
bodily,  behold  an  attempt  to  torture  his  language  into  a  direct  opposi- 
tion to  a  fiuidamental  doctrine  of  his  Master?  What  conceivable 
form  of  '  tcrestinff  the  Scriptures'  could  be  more  painful  to  his  generous 
spii'it?"  J.  N.  B.  {p.  61.) 

f  "  Thft  Apostle  here  by  'Sabbaths'  does  not  mean  the  first  and  last 
days  of  the  great  Jewish  feasts,  which  were  by  them  observed  as 
Sabbaths,  or  the  Sabbath  of  the  seventh  year,  or  of  the  year  of 
jubilee ;  but  only  or  chiefly  the  tt-/?c%  Sabbaths  of  the  Jews."  (Whitby, 
Comment,  in  loco.) 

J  Even  in  those  occasional  instances  where  the  word  c-a^^aiov  is 
used  m  a  secondary  sense  as  including  the  intervening  space  between 


152  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

No  rebutting  text  to  be  found.     The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  unassailed. 

*Hhe  new-moon/'  3.  The  weekly  Sabbath  was  the  pre-emi- 
nent distinction  of  the  Jew,  and  therefore  necessarily  the  one 
primarily  condemned  in  Judaizing  Christians.  "Let  no  man 
therefore  judge  you  .  .  .  .in  respect  of  an  hoJj/  dai/,  or  of 
the  new-moon,  or  of  the  Sabbath  days."  Volumes  might  be 
written  in  illustration  and  enforcement  of  this  great  "test 
quotation.''  Volumes  could  not  abate  one  jot  of  its  signifi- 
cance. 

The  very  liberal  offer  has  been  made  to  surrender  "the 
whole  argument  icUhout  reserve'  on  the  "  trifling  discovery" 
of  one  text  "  half  so  explicit  or  unmistakable"  on  the  Sabba- 
tarian side  of  the  controversy.  Though  J.  N.  B.  very  frankly 
admits  that  he  does  not  "anticipate^  such  an  unconditional 
surrender"  (j9.  80),  the  confident  tone  he  assumes  might  al- 
most lead  one  to  hope  that  he  had  made  the  "  discovery."  If 
so,  let  him  not  hesitate  to  announce  it.  Let  him  remember 
that  a  single  text  is  all  that  is  asked :  more  than  one  might 
prove  too  overwhelming  \ 

"  Ye  observe  dai/s  and  months .'"  said  Paul,  reprovingly,  to 
the  foolish  G-alatians.  Ye  still  regard  with  superstitious  rever- 
ence the  Sabbaths  and  the  new-moons ;  turning  back  to  these 
"  weak  and  beggarly  elements,"  after  being  redeemed  from 
bondage  to  the  Mosaic  law.  "  I  am  afraid  of  you,  lest  I  have 
bestowed  upon  you  labor  in  vain."  In  evasion  of  this,  J.  N. 
B.  has  nothing  to  say.  His  inventive  genius  seems  para- 
lyzed.'^^ 

Sabbath  and  Sabbath,  and  properly  translated  "week"  {Matt,  xxviii. 
1 ;  Luke  xviii.  12,  &c.),  it  is  still  the  hebdomadal  period  that  alone  is 
referred  to. 

*  "The  Jews,"  says  Luther,  commenting  on  this  passage,  "were 
commanded  to  keep  holy  the  Sabbath  day,  the  new-moons,  &c.  These 
ceremonies  the  Galatians  were  constrained  hj  false  teachers  to  keep  as 
necessary  to  righteousness."  (Co7n.  on  Gal.  in  loco.) 

"That  these  words,"  observes  Barrow,  "relate  generally  to  the 
Jewish  festivals,  the  context  doth  plainly  enough  show,  and  there  is 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.  153 

Presumptive  evidence  from  the  H'brcivs.  A  future  life— irrelevant. 

The  fourth  chapter  of  Hebrews  has  been  referred  to,  as  an- 
tecedently affording  "  a  strong  presumption"  in  favor  of  the 
figurative  intent  and  transitory  nature  of  the  Sabbath.  J.  N. 
B.,  while  accepting  and  approving  my  general  construction, 
denies  its  main  assumption,  that  the  apostle  here  refers  solely 
to  an  eartlily  rest  reserved  for  believers,  as  shown  by  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  dissertation.  "  On  the  contrary,^^  says  he,  "it  is 
with  perpetual  reference  to  a  future  life.''  {p.  78.)  He  ap- 
pears to  have  formed  "  an  inadequate  conception  of  the  con- 
text." 

It  has  been  noticed  that  the  great  theme  of  this  treatise  is 
"  the  Levitical  symbolism  of  the  gospel."  The  natural  inquiry 
of  even  the  candid  Jewish  mind  was,  "  How,  if  the  Mosaic  in- 
stitutes were  of  Divine  original — the  enactment  of  an  immu- 
table God — could  they  ever  be  supplanted  ?"  And  it  was  to 
meet  this  constantly  recurring  perplexity  that  this  elaborate 
exposition  was  written  for  the  Hebrew  Christians.  The  topics 
of  its  remark  would  naturally  be  those  which  most  required 
elucidation  as  to  their  spiritual  import.  The  doctrine  of  a 
future  life  and  a  heavenly  Canaan  was  as  confidently  received 
among  the  Essenes  and  the  Pharisees  as  among  the  disciples 
of  Jesus,  and  therefore  a  priori  would  not  be  likely  to  be 
specially  illustrated  here.  It  was  the  eartlihj  ritual  that 
formed  the  text;  almost  necessarily,  it  was  the  eartlihj  ^-^va.- 
bolism  that  furnished  the  comment.  Hence  the  apostle  very 
properly  declines  considering  "the  resurrection  of  the  dead" 
and  the  fu+ure  award,  as  foreign  to  his  purpose,  {chap,  vi.) 
Accordingly  we  find  (just  as  we  should  expect  to  find)  the  oc- 

good  reason  to  think  that  they  chiefly  respect  the  Sabbath  we  treat  on, 
for  which  probably  these  men  had  the  greatest  respect  and  zeal." — 
[Expos,  of  Decalogue.) 

Indeed,  as  Gill  has  well  remarked,  there  is  nothing  but  the  weekly 
Sabbath,  to  which  the  term  "days"  can  here  be  with  propriety  re- 
ferred. {Comment,  in  loco.)  The  best  expositors  are  unanimous  in 
this  application. 


154  ABROGATION  OP  THE  SABBATH. 

A  temporal  "rest"  alone  consistent  with  the  writer's  design. 

casional  allusions  to  the  life  hereafter  wholly  incidental,  and 
with  no  bearing  whatever  on  the  train  of  argument  involved. 
Thus  the  very  allusion  in  cJiap.  iv.  14  forms  really  no  part  of 
the  "context"  of  the  Sabbatism  previously  discussed.  A 
careful  analysis  of  the  writer's  train  of  thought  will  clearly 
show  that  this  verse  is  a  resumption  of  the  disquisition  from 
chap.  iii.  6:  the  intermediate  digression  (iii.  7 — iv.  13)  form- 
ing an  independent  episode  in  this  great  argumentative  epic. 

This  digression,  on  the  supposition  of  its  treating  solel?/  of  an 
earthly  rest  reserved  for  true  believers  (a  cessation  from  legal 
observance),  becomes  itself  an  interesting  collateral  allegation, 
admirably  corroborating  the  main  scope  of  the  discourse — the 
temporary  authority  of  the  law.  On  this  construction  it  is 
peculiarly  adapted  to  its  purpose  of  relieving  the  doubt  or  sus- 
taining the  faith.  On  this  construction  it  is  strikingly  illus- 
trated by  the  corresponding  scriptural  representations.  {Isat. 
xi.  10;  3Iatt.  xi.  28;  Col  ii.  17;  Gal.  iv.  &c.)  On  this 
construction  alone,  the  grammatical  exegesis  is  fully  satisfied. 
*'We  do  enter,''*  "he  that  is  entered,"  "he  hath  ceased," 
"let  us  labor  to  enter,"  "lest  you  should  seem  to  come  short.'' 

But  this,  says  my  friend,  "lays  unwarrantable  stress  upon 
the  tense  of  the  verb.  'For  we  which  believe,  do  enter  into 
rest.'  Whereas,  the  meaning  evidently  is,  heUevers  {and  tlioy 
only)  shall  inherit  it;  not  here,  but  hereafter,"  (p.  79.)  Surely 
J.  N.  B.  docs  not  call  this  biblical  criticism  !  There  is  no  one 
circumstance  to  support  his  hypothesis;  there  is  every  circum- 
stance to  contradict  it. 

Not  only  do  the  literal  construction,  the  correspondency  of 
Scripture,  the  Televancy  and  efficiency  of  the  immediate  argu- 
ment, and  the  whole  tenor  of  the  dissertation,  all  concur  in  es- 
tablishing a  jjresent  application  of  the  believer's  repose,  but 

'^  Not  they  which  believe  ^^  shall  enter,"  nor  , yet,  they  which  did 
believe  ^^  have  entered;"  but  they  "which  have  believed  do  [by  that 
very  act]  enter  into  rest.'" 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.  155 


A  spiritual  "  Sabbatism"'  contrasted  with  the  seventh-clay  Sabbath. 

the  very  form  of  phraseology  powerfully  strengthens  this  in- 
terpretation. The  apologist,  after  exalting  the  authority  of 
Jesus  above  that  of  Moses,  and  strongly  urging  the  necessity 
of  faith  in  him  as  a  pre-requisite  to  the  promised  "  rest/'  sud- 
denly drops  this  word  (xatartavai?)  in  his  great  conclusion,  and 
says  emphatically:  "There  remaineth  therefore  laa66afioinof\ 
a  JSahhafmn  -/'  or,  as  our  marginal  reading  has  it,  "  a  keeping 
of  a  Sahhatli.'''^  As  he  had  just  before  (^verses  4 — 6)  ex- 
pressly excluded  the  Sabbath  of  the  Decalogue  from  the  con- 
templation of  the  quoted  psalm,  this  very  word  "  Sabbatism'^ 
would  to  the  minds  of  those  addressed,  almost  inevitably  con- 
vey the  impression  that  the  Sabbath  itself  was  but  the  symbol ; 
and  that,  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  it  was  to  be  ob- 
served spiritually,  in  fulfilment  of  the  very  point  which  formed 
to  them  the  difficulty.  Such,  under  the  circumstances  and 
objects  of  the  treatise,  would  obviously  have  been  the  under- 
standing of  its  readers;  such  doubtless  was  the  intent  of  its 
writer.  As  Bunyan  well  says  of  the  "  rests"  discarded  :  "  It 
is  enough  that  they  before,  did  fail,  as  always  shadows  do. 
'  There  remains,  therefore,  a  rest  to  the  people  of  God ;' — a 
rest  to  come,  of  which  the  seventh  day,  in  which  God  rested, 
and  the  land  of  Canaan,  was  a  type;  which  rest  begins  in 
Christ  now,  and  shall  be  consummated  in  glory.  And  in  that 
he  saith  'There  remains  a  rest/  referring  to  that  of  David, 
what  is  it,  if  it  signifies  not  that  the  other  rests  remain  not? 
There  remains,  therefore,  a  rest  prefigured  by  the  seventh  day 
and  by  the  rest  of  Canaan,  though  they  are  fled  and  gone." 
{Essay  on  the  Sahhath,  ques.  iv.) 

"One  man  esteemeth  one  day  above  another;  another 
esteemeth  every  day  alike.  Let  every  man  be  fully  per- 
suaded in  his  own  mind." — {Rom.  xiv.  5.)     "  But  candidly 

*  WiCKLiF  translates  the  passage:  "  Tlierfore  the  Sabot  h  is  left 
to  tlie  people  of  God ;  for  lie  that  is  entrid  into  liise  reste,  restide  of 
Lis  werkis  as  also  God  of  hise ;  therefore,  haaste  we  to  entre  into  that 
reste,  that  no  man  falle  into  the  same  ensample  of  unbileeue." 


156  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  destructive  to  Sabbatai'ianism. 

now/'  says  J.  N.  B.,  "what  is  Paul  urging  there?''  {p.  80.) 
A  "  candid"  answer  to  this  ingenuous  question  will  leave  the 
Sabbatarian  no  inch  of  Bible  ground  to  stand  upon  !*  At 
present,  space  will  not  permit  the  critical  examination  of  this 
text  which  its  importance  deserves.  I  only  remark,  that  the 
^'momentous  distinction"  of  my  friend  is  a  simple  "fancy." 
Holy  days  and  unholy  meats  are  put,  by  Paul,  in  exactly  the 
same  predicament — of  observances  absolutely  indifferent  to  the 
gospel  Christian. f  If  J.  N.  B.  can  reconcile  a  "Divine 
authority/'  enjoining  the  estimation  of  the  Sabbath  above 
other  days,  with  the  Divine  authority  indisputably  given  in 

*  Paul's  unqualified  language  "strikes  equally  against  the  Christ- 
ian's 'Lord's  day,'  as  against  the  Sabbath  of  the  Decalogue.  And 
where,  then,  let  me  ask,  is  there  any  law,  or  institution  for  public 
worship  in  the  New  Testament?"     J,  N.  B.   [p.  19.) 

"  The  law  of  the  Sabbath  being  thus  repealed,  that  no  particular 
day  of  worship  has  been  appointed  in  its  place,  is  evident  from  the 
same  apostle. — Rom.  xiv."  Milton.  (Christ.  Doctrine,  Book  ii,  chap.  7.) 

"  In  the  fom-teenth  to  the  Romans,  the  great  patron  and  champion 
of  Christian  liberty  not  obscurely  declareth  his  mind,  that  Christians 
of  strength  in  judgment  did  regard  no  day  above  another,  but  es- 
teemed all  days  (he  excepteth  none)  alike,  as  to  any  special  obligation 
grounded  upon  Divine  law  and  right.  In  subordination  to  which  doc- 
trine, we  may  add,  that  this  appears,  with  great  evidence,  to  have 
been  the  common  opinion  of  the  wisest  and  most  orthodox  Christians 
in  the  primitive  church — the  most  constant  and  stinct  adherents  to 
Catholic  tradition  (who,  from  the  Apostle's  instruction,  best  understood 
the  purport  and  limits  of  the  liberty  purchased  by  Christ) — that  this 
law,  as  it  was  not  known  or  practised  before  Moses,  so  it  ceased  to  oblige 
after  Christ ;  being  one  of  the  '  shadows'  which  the  evangelical  light 
dispelled — one  of  the  '  burdens'  which  this  law  of  liberty  did  take  off 
us."     Barrow.   {Works,  vol.  i.  Exposit.  of  Decalogue.) 

•j-  "He  that  regardeth  [margin — observe th]  the  day,  regardeth  it 
unto  the  Lord  ;  and  he  that  regardeth  not  the  day,  to  the  Lord  he  doth 
not  regard  it.  He  that  eateth,  eateth  to  the  Lord,  for  he  giveth  God 
thanks  ;  and  he  that  eateth  not,  to  the  Lord  he  eateth  not,  and  giveth 
God  thanks."     Paul. 

"Now  mark  one  momentous  distinction!"     J.  N.  B.   [p.  81.) 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.        157 

The  New  Testament  entirely  Anti-sahbatarian. 

this  passage  to  neglect  its  observance,  and  "  esteem  every  day 
alike,"  he  has  powers  of  "accommodation'^  utterly  beyond 
what  I  give  him  credit  for,  and  utterly  beyond  my  own  con- 
ceptions. (^Gal.  i.  8.) 

Such,  then,  is  the  scriptural  presentation  of  the  great  "Sab- 
bath Question."  Every  allusion  to  the  Sabbath  (direct  or  indi- 
rect) contained  in  the  New  Testament,  clearly  establishes  Anti- 
sabbatarianism.  Not  one  allusion  (direct  or  indirect)  supports 
the  Sabbatarian  I  On  the  one  side  of  the  discussion,  we  have 
constant  dependence  on  "chapter  and  verse" — enforced  by 
literal  interpretation,  and  the  consenting  judgment  of  the 
most  learned  expositors  :  on  the  other  side,  we  have  extenua- 
tion and  assertion  ;  a  vague  appeal  to  irrelevant  authorities. 

Yet  weak  and  unsubstantial  as  the  Sabbatarian  doctrine  is 
thus  shown  to  be,  when  tested  by  the  decisive  standard  of 
"  the  law  and  the  testimony,"  there  is,  perhaps,  no  single  tenet 
of  modern  sectarianism  which  has  been  asserted  with  a  more 
dogmatic  assurance,  or  enforced  with  a  more  intolerant  aus- 
terity. No  terms  of  adulation  are  too  extravagant  in  aggran- 
dizement of  the  popular  idol  (^Acts  xix.  35) ;  no  epithets  of 
opprobrium  too  severe  in  reprehension  of  the  presumptuous 
iconoclast,  or  of  the  ungodly  and  profane  "  Sabbath-hreaker." 
(Ads  xix.  26—28.) 

It  is  remarkable,  too,  that  the  very  class  of  Christians  who 
most  affect  to  receive  the  Bible  as  their  "  sole  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,"  are  they  who  most  strikingly  disregard  its  unmis- 
takable teachings  on  this  subject.*  They  blindly,  but  zeal- 
ously, walk  "according  to  the  tradition  of  the  elders;"  main- 
taining, with  bigoted  declamation,  the  obligation  of  the  fourth 
commandment,  in  the  very  face  of  its  incontestable  abrogation : 

*  "All  things  necessary  for  man's  salvation,  faith,  and  life,  are 
either  expressly  set  down  in  Scripture,  or,  by  necessary  consequence, 
may  be  deduced  from  Scripture ;  unto  which  nothing  at  any  time  is  to 
be  added — by  traditions  of  men."   {Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith.) 

u 


158  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Scripture  nullified  by  tradition. 

^'  making  the  word  of  God  of  none  eifect  through  their  tradi- 
tions :"  and  ''  teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of 
men."* 

I  regret  that  I  am  not  allowed  to  prosecute  my  examination 
of  this  deeply  interesting  subject  so  thoroughly  as  I  could 
have  desired ;  though  I  must  return  you  my  sincere  and 
thankful  acknowledgments,  Messrs.  Editors,  for  the  very  libe- 
ral allowance  of  space  you  have  already  accorded  me. 

To  the  kindly  wishes  expressed  by  my  friend  J.  N.  B.,  I 
most  cordially  respond. 

Very  respectfully, 

W.  B.  T. 


Note. — At  the  close  of  my  friend's  Argument,  he  has  appended  an 
Apologije — "illustrative  of  his  views"  of  the  sanctity  of  the  Decalogue. 
Not  to  seem  unfurnished,  I  also  will  "  take  up  my  parable ;"  which,  as 
supplying  an  important  particular  entirely  omitted  by  him,  I  shall 
entitle,  in  contradistinction  to  his, 

A  Gospel  Apologue. 

King  Theion  had  iivo  davighters  "whom  he  tenderly  loved"  (Gal. 
iv,  24 — 31) :  and  from  their  both  bearing  the  family  name  "  Eusebia," 
my  friend  appears  either  to  have  confounded  the  sisters  together,  or. 
to  have  wholly  forgotten  the  existence  of  the  younger  one.  ("  The  key" 
to  this  oversight  will  probably  be  found  in  2  Cor.  iii.  15.) 

It  was  to  Paidiska,  the  "first-born"  [Exod.  iv.  22),  that  the  pearl 
necklace  was  presented — long  before  the  birth  of  the  favorite  daughter 
Eleuthera  ;  and  the  King,  in  bestowing  it,  with  his  own  hand  en- 
graved legibly  on  its  leading  pearl  [Exod.  xxxi.  18)  not  only  the 
name  "Paidiska,"  but  also  the  date  and  circumstances  of  her  bu'th. 
{Exod.  XX.  2.) 

^  "Those,  therefore,"  says  Milton,  "who  keep  holy  a  Sabbath- 
day,  for  the  consecration  of  which  no  divine  command  can  he  alleged, 
ought  to  consider  the  dangerous  tendency  of  such  an  example,  and 
the  consequences  with  which  it  is  likely  to  be  followed,  in  the  interpre- 
tation of  Scripture  ....  I  perceive,  also,  that  several  of  the  best 
divines,  as  Bucer,  Peter  Martyr,  Musculus,  Ursinus,  Gomarus, 
and  others,  concur  in  the  opinions  above  expressed."  [Christian  Doc- 
trine, B.  ii.  ch.  7.) 


MR.  Taylor's  second  reply.  159 

A  contrasted  "  Apologue." 

Apeithos  seems  to  have  been  essentially  a  mischief-maker ;  for, 
■while  the  blooming  Eleutheba  was  still  quite  young,  he  so  ■^^rrought 
on  her  sensitive  nature  that  he  half  convinced  her  that  the  antique 
necklace  (together  with  other  jewelry  presented  with  it),  was,  in  right, 
as  much  hers  as  her  sister's,  and  that  it  should  at  least  be  held  in 
common.  In  this  harassing  uncertainty,  she,  by  the  advice  of  her 
friends,  appealed  to  Prince  Christos,  to  whom  she  was,  indeed,  be- 
trothed. (2  Cor.  xi.  2.)  The  Prince,  though  absent,  sent  her  a  co'm- 
munication,  deciding  that  the  disputed  jewelry  was  solely  her  sister^s 
(Acts  xxi.  25) ;  and  reminding  her  that  he  himself  had  already 
given  her  a  necklace  of  far  greater  value  and  more  perfect  beauty 
(2  Cor.  iii.  7—11 ;  ffeb.  vii.  19 ;  viii.  6,  7 ;  xii.  18—24;  1  John.  iii.  22 
— 24) ;  and  he  further  dispatched  a  shrewd  and  trusty  messenger  [Rom. 
i,  1 ;  xi.  13)  to  explain  the  matter  fully,  and  to  thwart  the  counsels  of 
Apeithos.  This  had  the  desired  eflfect  of  restoring,  for  a  while,  a 
degree  of  harmony.  Eleuthera,  in  submissive  confidence,  no  longer 
even  coveted  the  necklace ;  although  it  contained  one  "pearl"  that  hers 
did  not!  (Matt.  v.  vi.  vii.) 

For  a  very  long  time  after  the  recall  of  the  Prince's  skilful  ambassa- 
dor, the  representations  of  Apeithos  were  unheeded  by  Eleuthera  ; 
but,  expert  in  all  the  arts  of  rhetoric,  the  zealous  adviser  would  exer- 
cise his  ingenuity — at  one  time,  in  showing  that  the  original  epistle 
meant  differently  from  its  apparent  meaning — at  another,  in  extenuat- 
ing or  "limiting"  the  recorded  instructions  left  by  the  faithful  ambas- 
sador— until  he  well-nigh  counteracted  the  Prince's  teachings,  even 
while  making  the  unhappy  bride's  love  for  her  betrothed  the  main 
element  of  his  injurious  influence !  He  would  so  obscure  her  vision  by 
his  sophistry,  that  she  often  thought  her  own  name  was  engraven  on 
the  contested  necklace ; — nay,  so  "lawyer-like  was  his  subtlety," 
that  he  sometimes  made  her  doubt  her  own  identity  ! — almost  per- 
suading her  that  she  was  indeed  the  veritable — literal  Paidiska  ! 

Her  most  learned  and  venerable  counsellors  have,  in  all  ages, 
labored  to  give  her  more  enlarged  views  :  but  still  is  Eleuthera 
troubled  with  uneasy  doubts  (Luke  x.  41) ;  still  does  she  sometimes 
claim  her  sister's  necklace,  while  her  oivn  lies  neglected — in  its  un- 
opened casket ! 

Esto  sapientior  ! 

Apeithos,  we  may  not  judge ;  his  motives  we  may  not  question. 
His  benevolence  doubtless  far  exceeded  his  judgment.  (Rom.  x.  2 ; 
Gal.  iv.  17—22.) 


THE  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 


REPLY  TO  ^'W.  B.  T." 


PART  I. 

"  And  the  servant  of  the  Lord  must  not  striye,  but  be  gentle  unto 
all  men,  apt  to  teach,  patient ;  in  meekness  instructing  those  that  op- 
pose themselves,  if  God,  peradventure,  will  give  them  repentance  to 
the  acknowledging  of  the  truth." — 2  Timothy  ii.  24,  25. 


Messrs.  Editors  : — 

I  HAVE  patiently  waited  until  my  friend  W.  B.  T.  has 
finished  his  examination  of  my  argument,  before  attempting 
to  reply.  I  did  this  that  I  might  be  put  in  full  possession  of 
his  views,  hoping,  thereby,  to  avoid  misunderstandings,  and  to 
abridge  as  much  as  possible  the  Discussion,  of  whose  length 
some  of  your  readers  complain.  I  am  sorry  any  are  weary  of 
a  Discussion  so  practical  in  its  bearings — so  vital,  indeed,  to  a 
good  conscience  in  regard  to  the  Sabbath.  If  any  agree  with 
me  in  my  general  views  of  this  subject,  I  entreat  them 
patiently  to  hear  what  "VV.  B.  T.  has  to  say  to  the  contrary. 
He  offers  his  reasons  for  doubting  or  rejecting  our  conclusions. 
How  shall  we  know  what  those  reasons  are,  that  is,  what  cir- 
cumstances hinder  his  conviction  of  the  force  and  consequent 
obligation  of  the  Sabbath  Argument  on  his  conscience — unless 
we  calmly  and  kindly  hear  him  through  ? 

I  shall  pass  over  the  texts  he  has  chosen  for  mottoes,  as  they 
will  come  in  better  hereafter.  But  I  must  beg  my  friend  to 
believe  that  what  I  have  said  of  his  talents,  attainments, 


MR.  brown's  third  REPLY.  161 


Moral  tendencies,  part  of  the  evidence.  A  good  profession. 


research,  and  earnestness,  is  simple  truth  to  me.  Without  a 
single  thought  of  flattery  (which  I  abhor  no  less  than  he  does), 
I  wrote  what  I  felt,  what  I  still  feel,  what  I  have  uniformly 
said  to  my  friends,  and  what  I  still  regard  as  but  an  honest 
acknowledgment  of  the  gifts  which  God  has  conferred  on  him, 
for  good  and  noble  purposes,  yet  to  be  revealed.  I  cordially 
agree  with  him  in  wishing  that  our  readers  may  overlook  all 
personal  comparisons,  and  weigh  only  the  merits  of  the  cause, 
that  they  may  see  on  which  side  the  evidence  preponderates. 

In  w^eighing  that  evidence,  however,  I  submit  that  this  is 
one  of  those  practical  cases  where  consequences  enter  into  the 
vitality  of  the  question.  They  form  a  part  of  the  subject-mat- 
ter; they  make,  therefore,  a  part  of  the  internal  evidence,  and 
supply  an  experimental  test  of  the  truth  of  opinions.  They 
may  indeed  be  '^postponed,"  but  cannot  be  overlooked. 
Ye  shall  know  them  hy  their  fruits.  Do  men  gather  grapes 
of  thorns,  or  figs  of  thistles? 

"  The  point  before  us"  (says  my  friend  justly)  is  the 
"  Scriptural  Authority"  of  the  Sabbath.  '^  If  the  view  I 
defend,"  he  continues,  "be  unsustained  by  the  Bible,  it  will 
doubtless  be  made  manifest,  and  I  shall  cheerfully  acknowledge 
a  new,  and  consequently  firmer  belief.  If  the  reverse  be  the 
case,  I  sincerely  hope — in  denying  that  one  man's  liberty 
should  be  ^judged  of  another  man's  conscience' — that  I  shall 
not  '  put  a  stumbling-block  in  any  believer's  way,'  however 
'  weak  in  the  faith'  he  may  be  considered.  Certainly  I  shall 
neither  presume  to  ^  judge  him,'  nor  to  '  set  him  at  naught.'  " 
(p.  87.)  This  is  well  said.  How  well  it  is  fulfilled,  will  appear 
in  the  sequel. 

I  had  said  that  the  good  of  old  were  taught  of  God  to  "call 
the  Sabbath  a  delight."  This  is  not  disputed.  But  when  my 
friend  affirms  that  "  the  good  of  the  neio  dispensation  were  also 
taught  of  God  to  call  the  Sabbath  '  a  shadow' — a  cancelled 
bond — a  blotted  handwriting — 'nailed  to  the  Cross,'  "  (p. 
87;)  he  assumes  the  very  point  in  dispute  between  us.     Is  this 

14* 


162  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  two  Dispensations  not  contrasted.  An  acquittal  of  disingenuoupness. 

consistent  with  fair  reasoning?  Does  he  hope  to  convince  me 
by  reaffirming  an  interpretation  which  I,  at  least,  believe  has 
been  set  aside,  by  fair  and  full  examination,  in  part  ii.  of  my 
Second  Reply  ?  I  shall  have  occasion  to  recur  to  this  point 
hereafter.  I  only  add  here  that  the  same  assumption  appears 
in  his  affirming  that  it  is  ''a  sign  of  weakness  to  *  esteem  one 
day  above  another.'  "  Paul  nowhere  affirms  this.  It  is  my 
friend's  construction  only;  and  that  a  wrong  one,  as  was 
shown,  I  think,  clearly,  in  PART  iv.  of  my  Reply.  But,  as 
Truth,  and  not  mere  tilt,  is  my  object  in  this  Discussion,  as 
nothing  else  would  tempt  me  one  moment  to  turn  aside  from 
other  pressing  engagements,  or  to  redeem  time,  as  I  am  com- 
pelled to  do,  from  needful  rest,  to  continue  it, — so  I  shall,  in 
its  place,  give  this  point  a  fresh  investigation.  Only  I  must 
aim  at  a  wise  brevity.  May  the  Holy  Spirit  of  Truth,  so  in- 
dispensable to  lis  all,  and  so  often  promised  to  those  who  seek 
his  influence,  condescend  to  guide  us  into  all  truth  ! 

I.    The  Day  required  hij  the  Sahhath  Laiu. 

On  his  explanation  of  the  object  in  dropping  the  last  clause 
of  his  original  complex  Proposition,  I  here  gladly  acquit  my 
friend  W.  B.  T.  of  any  artful  disingenuousuess.  He  will  for- 
give me,  I  trust,  for  saying  it  was  done  ingeniously.  I  was 
struck  so  strongly  with  its  effect  on  the  argument  that  I  too 
hastily  inferred  cleshjn.  But  as  I,  above  all  things,  deprecate 
in  discussion  whatever  destroys  mutual  confidence,  or  a  full 
repose  in  each  other's  sincerity"  and  integrity,  I  here  say,  once 
for  all,  that  if  in  any  other  instance  I  have  been  betrayed  into  a 
like  fault,  I  willingly  bear  my  own  solemn  and  earnest  witness 
against  it.  I  only  ask  of  my  friend  that  he  judge  me,  and 
those  of  my  persuasion,  in  the  same  spirit  with  which  he  would 
himself  be  judged.  I  have  long  believed  that  no  soundness  of 
Logic  can  atone  for  a  breach  of  Charity. 

One  thing  alone  under  this  head  will  require  attention.  As 
W.  B.  T.  chooses  to  waive  the  vital  question  on  the  Origin  of 
the  Sabbath,  until  the  discussion  of  Proposition  II.,  I  shall 


MR.  brown's  third  REPLY.  163 

Saturday  enjoined  only  on  the  Jeivs,  An  undue  assumption. 

waive  my  right  to  discuss  it  here,  and  give  him  all  the  advan- 
tage of  his  hypothesis,  that  the  Sabbath  was  first  instituted  by 
Moses.  On  this  supposition,  then,  I  will  meet  him,  and  try 
the  issue  without  fear. 

^^That  Saturday  zs  4he  Sabbath  enjoined  in  the  Decalogue,^  " 
says  my  friend,  ''is  as  certain  as  human  knowledge  can  be, 
even  concerning  the  Bible  itself  (p.  21.)  In  this  I  entirely 
differ  from  him.  Had  he  said  "  that  Saturday  is  the  Sabbath 
enjoined  on  the  Jews,  is  as  certain  as  human  knowledge  can 
be,"  I  would  have  at  once  agreed  with  him.  But  the  two  pro- 
positions are  essentially  distinct,  and  I,  at  least,  can  never 
confound  them,  without  shutting  the  eyes  of  my  understand- 
ing. How  is  it  that  my  friend  is  blind  to  this  distinction  ? 
His  own  reasoning  against  it  is  like  that  of  some  sceptics 
against  the  reality  of  "  first  truths,"  or  self-evident  principles, 
on  which  all  reasoning  must  proceed, — everyichere  assuming 
the  very  point  in  terms  denied.  He  first  asks,  "  How  shall 
we  ever  ascertain  what  is  the  seventh  day  of  the  Decalogue?" 
{p.  88.)  And  then  answers,  "  Clearly  not  by  itself.  All 
legal  interpretation  must  ultimately  be  based  on  some  assump- 
tion without  the  statute."  Suppose  I  admit  this,  what 
follows-  ?  "  J.  N.  B.  admits  '  that,  for  the  Jews,  it  was  fixed 
to  the  last  day  of  our  iveek.  But  then  it  was  not  fixed  hy  the 
Decalogue.^  "  This,  answers  my  friend  W.  B.  T.,  "  would 
be  a  simple  impossibility."  Be  it  so.  But  how,  then,  is  it 
fixed?  "By  adopting,"  says  my  friend,  "the  universal 
designation  of  a  well  recognized  distinction.  The  term  '  Sun- 
day' is  not  more  precisive  in  our  law  than  is  the  term  ^  ha- 
shibingi'  [translated  'the  seventh  day']  in  that  of  the  He- 
brews. It  is  applicable  to  no  '  seventh  day'  but  Saturday." 
This  last  remark  is  the  purest  assumption.  As  it  is  by  no 
means  self-evident,  I  must  demand  ample  proof  before  I  can 
admit  its  truth.  Is  the  proof  found  in  the  "  universal  designa- 
tion of  a  well  recognized  distinction  ?"  If  so,  then  the  infer- 
ence irresistibly  follows  that  the  seventh  day  Sabbath  was 


164  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

"  The  serenth  day"  determined  by  the  manna.  Proportion,  and  succession. 

universally  recognized  before  the  giving  of  the  Decalogue  at 
Sinai.  But  this  is  coming  on  to  my  ground,  and  abandoning 
his  own.  To  avoid  this,  will  my  friend  say,  the  seventh  day 
was  determined  by  the  giving  of  the  manna?  This  I  under- 
stand him  to  do,  in  these  words :  "  '  Saturday  is  the  seventh 
day,'  says  God,  by  the  manna.''  (p.  89.)  But  this,  again,  is 
abandoning  his  original  position,  and  coming  over  to  mine. 
On  this  very  ground  I  had  said  (^9.  59),  "  the  connection  [of 
the  seventh  day  of  the  Decalogue  with  Saturday']  was  fixed  by 
statute,  only  for  that  people" — meaning  by  "  statute,"  what 
God  said  to  Moses  at  the  giving  of  the  manna.  (^Exodus  xvi. 
5,  15,  16,  22 — 31.)  See,  particularly,  verse  26th,  where  the 
statute  of  designation  is  clear  as  the  sun ;  and  that,  too,  long 
hefore  the  giving  of  the  Decalogue.  "Then,  most  certainly, 
the  statute  itself  was  '  only  for  that  people.'  "  So  says  W.  B. 
T.  {p.  89),  and  I  am  most  happy  to  agree  with  him.  Why 
should  I  not  be,  when  he^comes  over  completely  to  my 
ground  ?  Would  that  in  all  points  we  could  meet  as  perfectly 
as  in  this ! 

It  follows,  from  this  concession,  that  the  designation  of  the 
particular  day  of  the  week,  from  a  given  point  of  reckoning,  is 
no  part  of  the  Fourth  Commandment.  The  projyortion  of  our 
days  to  be  kept  holy  to  the  Lord  is  alone  specified.  Six  days 
being  allotted  to  our  ordinary  labor  (beginning  at  any  point  it 
pleases  God  at  any  time  to  designate  by  proper  evidence) 
every  seventh  in  succession  is  required,  by  the  Fourth  Com- 
mandment, to  bo  set  apart  to  Him  as  the  sole  Creator  of  the 
heavens  and  the  earth.  All  the  terms  and  reasons  of  this 
Law  are  universal;  as  much  so  as  in  any  other  commandment 
of  the  Decalogue.  "  The  seventh  day"  of  the  Decalogue — as 
far  as  it  is  defined  by  the  Decalogue  itself — is  the  seventh  in 
succession — no  other — no  less — no  more.  "Every  word  of 
God  is  pure.  Add  thou  not  unto  His  words,  lest  He  reprove 
thee,  and  thou  .be  found  a  liar,"  is  a  warning  that  should 
pierce  every  conscience  to  the  quick. 


MR.  brown's  third  REPLY.  165 

A  general  designation.  The  Sabbath — primary :  the  seventh  day — secondary. 

My  friend  W.  B.  T.  greatly  mistakes,  if  he  thinks  me  in 
any  dilemma,  by  supposing  '*that  because  a  miracle  has  deter- 
mined what  the  particular  thing  referred  to  by  the  law  really  is, 
a  new  miracle  may  establish  a  different  intent  in  the  very  same 
law/'  (p.  89.)  He  knows,  quite  as  well  as  I  do,  that  if  the  law 
be  of  a  general  description,  it  is  equally  applicable  to  two  or 
more  specific  cases.  He  may  well  say,  therefore,  as  he  does, 
"  Show  us,  however,  the  miracle  (fixing  another  '  seventh  day'), 
and  it  sufficeth  us."  In  spite  of  this  sharp  irony,  that  mira- 
cle may  in  due  time  appear. 

On  my  words,  "  the  whole  authority  of  the  Sabbath  enjoined 
in  the  Decalogue  may,  for  sufficient  reasons,  by  '  the  Lord  of 
the  Sabbath,'  be  transferred  to  the  Jirst  day  of  our  week,"  he 
remarks:  "This  seems  to  be  a  new  phase  in  theology.  Surely 
ihis,  first  day  cannot  still  be  'the  Sabbath  enjoined  in  the  De- 
calogue,' for  that  is  expressly  limited  to  the  seventh  day  of 
the  week."  {p.  89.)  But  here  he  falls  into  the  old  mistake, 
by  confounding  things  that  differ.  The  Decalogue  says :  "  Re- 
member the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy;"  not  '^  Remember 
the  seventh  day  to  keep  it  holy."  What  the  Sabbath  day 
is,  i.  e.  how  often  it  occurs,  and  what  is  its  order  of  succession, 
is  intimated  in  what  follows.  The  "seventh  day"  is  not,  strictly 
speaking,  in  the  law  itself,  but  in  the  explanation  of  the  law. 
It  is  not  the  text,  but  the  commentary  on  the  text,  by  the 
Divine  Lawgiver;  and  although  of  equal  authority  with  it, 
merely  settles  the  general  principle,  that  the  Sabbath  day  is 
of  weekly  recurrence,  as  the  memorial  of  the  six  days'  work  of 
creation — nothing  more.  He  who  would  make  more  of  it 
must  do  so  solely  by  the  force  of  an  association  of  ideas, 
peculiar  and  proper  to  a  Jew  under  that  dispensation,  butper- 
verted  and  irrational  in  any  other.  The  time  may  come, 
when  my  friend  W.  B.  T.  will  see  this  as  clearly  as  I  do  now ; 
and  will  wonder  at  the  absurdity  of  talking  about  a  "contra- 
diction" in  the  idea  of  such  a  transfer  of  the  authority  of  the 
Sabbath  Law  from  one  li^y  of  the  week  to  another. 


166  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Views  of  Athanasius  ;  and  Eusebius.  Redemption  higher  than  Creation. 

Be  that  as  it  may,  however,  such  an  idea  is  not  a  ^^new 
phase  in  theology. ''*  According  to  Coleman  (^Christian 
Antiquities,  p.  430),  "  Athanasius,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
third  [properly /oi*r^/i]  century  (a.  d.  325),  expressly  declared 
that  '  the  Lord  changed  the  Sabbath  into  the  Lord's  day.^ " 
Coleman  adds :  "  The  account  which  Eusebius  gives  of  this 
subject  is  that  Hhe  Logos,  the  Word,  in  the  New  Testament 
transferred  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  Grod  unto  this  day.'  The 
day,  he  also  says,  was  universally  observed  as  strictly  as  the 
Jewish  Sabbath,  whilst  all  feasting,  drunkenness,  and  recrea- 
tion was  rebuked  as  a  profanation  of  the  sacred  day. —  Com- 
ment, in  Ps.  92.'' 

I  had  spoken  of  a  change  of  the  day  as  demanded  by  the 
necessity  of  the  case,  because  the  work  of  redemption  is  "  of 
fiir  higher  and  sweeter  import  in  the  esteem  of  all  Christians," 
than  the  work  of  creation.  On  which  my  friend  makes  the 
following  important  concession :  ''  This  consideration  may  be  a 
very  sufficient  reason  for  its  commemoration,"  I  thank  my 
friend  most  sincerely  for  this  concession.  It  is  too  important 
ever  to  be  forgotten  by  me,  or  by  him.  ^^But,"  he  adds,  "it  is 
no  reason  whatever,  either  for  superseding  the  former  Divinelj- 
appointed  memorial,  or  for  inferring  a  change  in  the  applica- 
tion of  the  original  command"  (p.  90)  ;  both  which  positions 
I  grant,  if  he  refers  merely  to  human  authority.  His  illustra- 
tion, however,  is  most  unfortunate,  for  the  plain  reason  that 

*  Whether  from  a  misprint  in  my  copy  or  from  a  mistake  in  my 
reading,  it  seems  the  word  "  theology"  is  here  an  error.  It  should 
have  been  (as  in  page  89)  "a  new  phase  in  the  alogy ;""  or,  as  my  friend 
regarded  it,  the  illogical  conclusion.  As  to  the  justice  of  applying 
this  term  to  my  statement,  I  must  leave  the  reader  to  judge.  As,  how- 
ever, the  facts  suggested  by  the  word  "theology"  are  pertinent  to  the 
argument,  I  let  them  stand.  They  show  that  my  view  was  not  consid- 
ered absurd  or  unsound  by  such  distinguished  men  as  Eusebius  and 
Athanasius — the  greatest  men  of  their  age.     But  I  appeal  to  Common 


MR.  brown's  third  REPLY.  167 

The  Patriarchal,  Mosaic,  and  Christian  dispensations.  Justin  Marttr. 

there  is  no  parallelism  in  the  cases.  A  weekly  Sabbath  origi- 
nally commemorated  the  creation  of  the  whole  world.  {Gen. 
ii.  3  ;  Exod.  xx.  11.)  When  the  whole  world  had  forsaken 
the  worship  of  the  Creator,  and  a  single  nation,  the  Jews,  was 
set  apart  to  restore  that  original  worship,  the  weekly  Sabbath 
received  a  new  and  additional  import  peculiar  to  that  nation. 
(^Deut.  V.  15.)  Afterwards,  when  the  Messiah  came  out  of  that 
nation  to  complete  the  great  work  of  human  redemption  by 
his  own  death  and  resurrection,  a  still  higher  dignity  was  con- 
ferred upon  the  weekly  Sabbath  by  connecting  it  with  the 
memory  of  that  grand  event — the  centre  of  the  Divine  works, 
the  cynosure  of  all  eyes,  the  dawn  of  a  new  and  more  glorious 
creation  out  of  the  ruins  of  the  first,  the  prism  where  every 
attribute  of  the  Infinite  Perfection,  centering  in  the  soft 
emerald  hue  of  love,  is  reflected  in  distinct,  yet  blended  and 
harmonious  beauty  forever  and  ever.  (1  Tim.  i.  11 ;  2  Cor.  iv. 
6 ;  Ephes.  iii.  10;  1  Pet.  i.  12 ;  1  John  iv.  10.)  And  an  asso- 
ciation of  such  transcendent  import,  if  made  at  all,  must  be 
made  by  attaching  the  weekly  Sabbath  to  the  very  day  of  the 
Resurrection,  and  thus  giving  it  a  pre-eminent  sacredness  over 
all  the  rest.  This  merely  circumstantial  change  not  afi'ecting 
the  Law  itself,  but  only  giving  it  a  new  and  appropriate  appli- 
cation, at  once  combining  in  its  weekly  rotation  the  three 
grandest  displays  of  the  Divine  glory,  and  establishing  the 
real  harmony  of  the  Patriarchal,  the  Mosaic,  and  the  Christ- 
ian dispensations,  is  neither  improbable  in  conception,  nor 
contradicted  by  fact.  And  although  the  deliverance  from 
Egypt  is  less  prominent  in  our  thoughts  as  Gentiles,  yet  so 
early  as  the  days  of  Justin  Martyr  we  find  the  other  two 
ideas  actually  in  the  minds  of  Christians.  For  he  assigns  as 
the  reasons  for  observing  the  first  day  of  the  week,  commonly 
called  Sunday,  as  the  day  of  Christian  worship,  that  on  this 
day  God,  having  changed  the  darkness  and  the  elements, 
created  the  world,  and  that  Jesus  our  Lord  on  this  day  arose 
from  the  dead.    (Col.  Chris.  Antiq.  p.  429.)    And  if,  at  the 


168  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 


Death,  and  Resurrection  of  the  Sabbath. 


voice  of  Joshua,  "the  sun  stood  still  in  the  midst  of 
heaven/'  and  "a  whole  day"  was  thus  dropped  in  the  Jewish 
calendar  without  affecting  the  ohligation  of  the  Law  of  the 
Sabbath  (Josh.  x.  13),  how  can  its  obligation  be  affected  by 
passing  over  in  solemn  silence  that  whole  day  in  which  the 
"  Lord  of  the  Sabbath''  lay  in  his  lowest  humiliation  under 
the  power  of  death?  Can  that  "seventh  day"  ever  be  the 
peculiar  festival  of  Christians  ?  Never,  never,  never !  Its 
aspect  is  changed  by  that  dread  event.  In  this  sense  I  fully 
agree  with  Bunyan,  "As  for  the  seventh  day,  that  is  gone  to 
its  grave,  with  the  signs  and  shadows  of  the  Old  Testament." 
Yes,  it  went  to  its  grave  in  the  tomb  of  Jesus  Christ.  But 
as  the  body  of  our  Lord  rose  from  the  grave  the  same  sub- 
stance, changed  and  glorified,  yet  identical,  so  was  it  with  the 
Sabbath.  With  Christ,  its  Lord  and  oursj  it  rose  from  the 
grave  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  changed  and  glorified,  yet 
substantially  the  same,  still  beaming  on  us  with  that  Divine 
benignity  which  shows  that  "  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man," 
and,  like  its  Lord,  is  now  living  to  die  no  more. 

J.  N.  B. 


PART  II. 

The  Son  of  Man  is  Lord  even  of  the  Sabbath  day." — Mark  ii.  28. 


The  Sabbath  then  remains  under  the  Christian  Dispen- 
sation, and  Christ  is  its  "Lord."  This  implies  that  He 
has  full  power  to  determine,  by  His  own  authority,  how  it 
shall  be  observed,  and  on  what  day.  And  we  may  be  sure 
He  has  determined  both  points  for  His  own  glory,  that  is, 
in  the  way  which  most  clearly  marks  His  authority.  His  wis- 
dom, and  His  love.  True  faith  will  rejoice  to  confess  Him 
before  unbelieving  Jews  and  Gentiles,  as  "Lord  of  all."  {Acts 
X.  36.) 


MR.  brown's  third  REPLY.  169 

-     Faith  weak  in  comprehension ;  and  in  consistency.  Scepticism  general. 

But  true  Faith  may  be  "  weak" — weak  in  logical  compre- 
hension, or  in  practical  consistency,  or  in  both.  Faith  is  weak  in 
logical  comprehension  when  it  admits  a  general  proposition,  yet 
Aowhis particular  propositions  necessarily  included  in  it.  Thus 
the  Apostles  fully  believed  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  yet  were 
wholly  opposed  for  a  time  to  the  doctrine  of  His  death  and  resur- 
rection. Thus  my  seventh-day  Baptist  friends  of  the  "  Sabbath 
Recorder,""^  fully  believe  in  the  Perpetuity  of  the  Sabbath,  and 
that  Christ  is  its  Lord,  but  deny  the  change  of  the  day  by  our 
Lord ;  and  thus,  on  the  other  hand,  my  friend  W.  B.  T.  fully 
believes  that  Christ,  as  the  "Lord  of  the  Sabbath  day,''  has 
full  authority  over  it;  but  he  can  see  no  other  meaning  in  that 
glorious  truth  than  that  of  a  right  to  annihilate  it  altogether. 
This  is  very  much  as  if  one  should  infer,  from  the  words 
of  Jehovah  to  Moses,  "  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac, 
and  Jacob,"  merely  that,  as  their  God,  he  had  the  right  to 
annihilate  them  at  will.  How  different  was  the  inference  de- 
rived from  these  words  by  our  Saviour,  in  his  dispute  with 
the  Sadducees,  we  all  know.  From  this  want  of  full  logical 
comprehension,  spring  a  great  part  of  the  differences  among 
true  Christians.  And  hence  too  it  is  often  difficult  for  us  (not 
for  Christ)  to  distinguish  "  weak  faith,"  especially  in  strong 
minds,  from  stubborn  unbelief. 

It  is  very  striking  to  observe  how  much  alike  is  the  spirit 
of  unbelief  in  all  ages.  We  find  in  fact  that  every  revelation 
of  tlig.'l)ivine  Will,  every  Dispensation,  every  Prophet,  every 
Doctrine,  Precept,  and  Institution  of  the  Bible,  has  at  some 
time  or  other  been  questioned  or  denied.  And  sometimes  this 
has  been  done  by  very  good  men.  The  deep  root  of  opposi- 
tion is  by  nature  in  us  all.  It  lurks  beneath  the  surface  of 
our  own  consciousness,  till  some  unexpected  occasion  brings  it 
out.  Nothing  but  the  love  of  Christ  can  cure  it.  Even 
Peter,  the  first  to  profess  his  assured  faith,  was  the  first  to  yq- 

*  A  Sabbatarian  newspaper  published  weekly  in  New  York. 
15 


170  OBLIGATION  OP  THE  SABBATH. 

The  strongest  CTidence  expected :  but  not  always  accorded. 

ceive   his   Lord's  rebuke  for  this  '^evil   heart  of  unbelief/' 
{Matt  xvi.  16—23.) 

The  pretext  for  unbelief  and  opposition  is  always  the  same 
— want  of  evidence.  "  Yea,  hath  God  said  T'  is  the  first  ar- 
ticulate breath  of  the  Tempter.  (Gen.  iii.  1.)  So  when  Christ, 
at  the  beginning  of  His  ministry,  had  purged  the  Temple  of 
God  of  its  poUutors,  the  multitude  eagerly  thronged  around 
him,  and  demanded  some  sign  of  His  Divine  Mission.  They 
required  some  stupendous  miracle,  like  the  parting  of  the  Red 
Sea,  or  the  consuming  blaze  of  Mount  Sinai,  or  the  national 
support  by  the  morning  showers  of  Manna.  How  were  they 
disappointed!  "To  their  demand,"  says  Milman,  "Jesus 
calmly  answered  by  an  obscure  and  somewhat  oracular  allusion 
to  the  remote  event  of  His  own  resurrection,  the  one  great 
'  Sign'  of  Christianity,  to  which  it  is  remarkable  that  Christ 
constantly  refers,  when  required  to  ratify  His  mission  by  some 
public  miracle."   (Ris.  Christ,  p.  80.) 

The  lesson  we  learn  from  this  is  of  the  deepest  import.  We 
may  be  demanding  on  some  points  a  kind,  or  degree,  of  evi- 
dence, which  Infinite  Wisdom  does  not  see  fit  to  give.  If  the 
Divine  Will  is  revealed  in  any  way,  or  by  any  means,  in  a 
degree  sufficient  to  guide  the  sincere  inquirer  after  Truth  and 
Duty,  while  it  leaves  the  caviller  unsatisfied,  all  the  purposes 
of  our  moral  probation  are  fulfilled.  "  If  any  man  desire  to  do 
His  IV ill,"  says  the  Great  Teacher,  "  he  shall  know  of  the  doc- 
trine, whether  it  be  of  God."  In  every  practical  question,  an 
obedient  heart  is  the  first  and  most  indispensable  thing.  With- 
out this,  with  all  the  Prudence,  Learning,  and  Logic  of  Ga- 
maliel, we  shall  "  stumble  at  the  word,  being  disobedient." 
(1  Pet.  ii.  8.)  Our  opposition  may  injure  ourselves  and  others. 
But  it  cannot  alter,  in  one  iota,  the  Will  of  God.  Even 
"  unto  them  which  be  disobedient,  the  Stone  which  the  build- 
ers disallowed,  the  same  is  made  the  head  of  the  corner." 
(1  Pet.  ii.  7.)  Whoever  then  may  disallow  it,  Christ  our 
Lord  "  is  Lord  even  of  the  Sabbath  day." 


MR.  brown's  third  REPLY.  171 

Points  established.  Evidence  that  Christ  changed  the  day. 

In  regard  to  the  day  of  the  Sabbath,  I  believe  my  last  arti- 
cle vindicated  clearly,  beyond  all  contradiction,  the  following 
points  : — 

1.  The  Sabbath  was  in  existence  before  the  Decalogue  was 
given. 

2.  The  Fourth  Commandment,  like  all  the  rest,  is  expressed 
in  terms  of  universal  application;  having  in  them  nothing 
national,  local,  or  temporary. 

3.  The  ''seventh  day,"  as  defined  in  the  Fourth  Command- 
ment, is  simply  relative  to  what  is  said  before  of  the  "  six  days" 
iceehhj  devoted  to  labor,  and  will  equally  apply  to  any  day  in 
the  week  on  which  it  may  please  God  to  fix  the  observance  of 
the  Sabbath. 

4.  It  pleased  God  to  fix  that  day/br  the  Jeics  to  Saturday, 
by  the  miracle  of  the  Manna — a  miracle  entirely  'peculiar  to 
the  nation — thus  making  the  Saturday  Sabbath  a  &\gji  pecu- 
liarly  commemorative  of  their  redemption  from  Egypt.  Here 
I  agree  with  my  friend  W.  B.  T. 

5.  The  Saturday  Sabbath,  being  thus  a  sign  of  the  Mosaic 
national  Covenant,  expires  with  that  Covenant ; — leaving  the 
universal  weeMy  Sabbath  required  by  the  Decalogue  in  full 
force — like  the  rest  of  the  Ten  Commandments. 

What  I  propose  now  to  show  is  that  there  is  ample  evidence 
in  the  Scriptures  that  Christ,  as  the  sole  "Lord  of  the  Sabbath 
day,"  changed  the  day  of  its  observance  in  honor  of  His  own 
Resurrection  : — so  that  now  the  first  day  of  the  week,  common- 
ly called  Sunday,  is  "  the  Lord's  day,"  or  Christian  Sabbath. 

One  fundamental  part  of  that  evidence  is  seen  (as  I  showed 
in  my  last  article)  in  the  nature  and  necessity  of  the  case — 
that  is  to  say,  in  the  new  relations  established  by  the  work  of 
Christ,  and  confirmed  by  His  resurrection  from  the  dead  on 
that  day.  For  "if  Christ  be  not  raised,  your  faith  is  vain," 
Christians,  "  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins.  Then  they  also  which 
are  fallen  asleep  in  Christ  are  perished.  But  now  is  Christ 
risen  from  the  dead,  and  become  the  first  fruits  of  them  that 


172  OBLIGATION  OP  THE  SABBATH. 

An  open  avowal  demanded.  The  Decalogue — universal  and  perpetual  law. 

slept.^'  (1  Cor.  XV.  17 — 20.)  Having  briefly  presented  this 
part  of  the  evidence  already,  I  shall  here  continue  and  confirm 
it,  and  then  proceed  to  that  which  arises  from  miracle,  pro- 
phecy, the  personal  sanction  of  Christ,  and  the  example  of  His 
inspired  Apostles. 

At  the  very  threshold  of  the  Argument,  in  the  name  of 
Truth  and  Honesty,  I  have  a  demand  to  make  on  W.  B.  T. 
and  on  all  of  his  opinions.  Come  out  clearly,  and  show  your 
colors.  What  do  you  mean  to  do  with  the  Decalogue  ?  Not 
a  trace  of  anything  local,  temporary,  ceremonial,  or  shadowy, 
is  in  it.  Everything  is  absolute,  universal,  perpetual  Law — 
the  Legislation  of  the  Infinite  Creator  for  men  His  creatures. 
As  such,  it  is  distinctly  recognized  by  Christ  and  His  Apostles. 
It  is  bound  up  inseparably  as  part  and  parcel  of  Christianity 
—as  the  original  moral  standard.  Sin  is  defined  as  a  trans- 
gression of  it.  It  is  the  Law  of  Conscience  rewritten  by  the 
finger  of  God — more  fully  and  clearly.  {3Iatt.  v.  17 — 32 ;  xix. 
16—19;  Eom.  vii.  7—14;  viii.  4;  xiii.  8—10;  2  Cor.  iv. 
5—18;  1  Tim.  v.  5—11;  1  John.  iii.  4—10;  Lulce  xvi.  17, 
18.) 

Look  calmly  now  at  the  case  before  us.  Here  is  the  Law 
of  the  Weekly  Sabbath  in  the  Decalogue — moral,  positive, 
clear,  benign — necessary  for  man  as  man,  in  all  regions  and 
in  all  ages.  Here  it  stands  before  our  eyes,  the  weekly  me- 
morial of  creation — the  natural  safeguard  against  idolatry — 
the  grand  means  of  practically  uniting  the  Created  with  the 
Creator — the  perpetual  sign  of  a  spiritual  covenant  between 
them — in  a  word,  the  chief  moral,  social,  and  religious  educator 
of  the  race.  And  yet  you  demand  positive  proof  of  its  re- 
enactment  by  Christ  in  explicit  terms — or  of  an  equally  explicit 
account  of  its  transfer  to  the  first  day,  from  the  seventh  of  the 
Jewish  calendar  week.  Demands,  at  once  preposterous  and 
presumptuous !  By  what  right  do  you  thus  dictate  to  God 
the  mode  of  His  revelation  ?  Besides,  the  burden  of  proof,  in 
the  first  instance,  is  not  on  me,  but  on  you.     You  have  first 


MR.  brown's  third  REPLY.  173 

Christ's  design,  to  honoi-  the  Sabbath, — not  to  abrogate,  it. 

to  prove  that  the  Law  of  the  Decalogue  is  abrogated^  before 
you  demand  proof  of  its  re-enactment.  Till  this  is  done  fully 
and  fairly,  till  tlie  argument  from  Matt.  v.  for  example  is 
fairly  met  and  set  aside  (which  W.  B.  T.  has  not  eTen  at- 
tempted in  his  Reply),  you  have  no  right  to  demand  proof  of 
any  kind  as  to  its  present  obligation.  Here  is  the  Sab- 
bath. Look  at  it.  The  seal  of  the  world's  Creator — of  your 
Creator,  and  of  mine — is  upon  it.  Efface  it  if  you  can  !  At- 
tempt it,  if  you  dare  I 

But  I  love  not  the  lansruap-e  of  defiance,  even  in  so  strong 
a  case  as  this.  I  prefer  the  language  of  earnest  deprecation. 
Tell  me  not  that  Jesus  Christ  has  come  from  Heaven  to  abro- 
gate this  Law — in  the  face  of  his  own  express  declarations  to  the 
contrary.  That  Law  was  in  His  heart !  Tell  me  not  that  He 
fidfiUed,  and  by  so  doing  superseded  it.  He  did  indeed /m/^? 
it,  in  His  faithful  exposition,  in  his  noble  vindication,  in  His 
constant  application — in  His  whole  obedient  life,  and  in  His 
sin-atoning  death,  by  which  He  redeemed  us  from  the  curse, 
and  secured  the  promise  of  the  holy  spirit  to  write  it  forever 
in  our  heart  of  hearts  I  But  all  this  was  to  honor  it  as  imniu- 
tahle — not  to  abrogate  it.  In  vain  will  you  plead  Paul's  words 
to  the  Bomans:  *' But  now  we  are  delivered  from  the  law — 
that  being  dead  wherein  ice  were  held.^'  Paul  does  not  say 
that  the  Law  is  "  dead,"  but  its  curse  only,  "  in  which  we 
were  held"  by  our  guilt.  {^Gal.  iii.  13.)  This  curse  is  now 
'*  dead"  as  to  believers — that  is,  deprived  of  all  power  to  hurt 
us.  And  our  deliverance,  he  expressly  adds,  is,  "that  we 
might  serve  in  newness  of  spirit,  not  in  the  oldness  of  the  let- 
ter." The  authority  of  the  Law  then  remains,  vital  and  intact. 
Indeed  Paul  had  explicitly  guarded  his  meaning  before.  {Rom. 
iii.  31.)  "Do  we  make  void  [i.  e.  abrogate']  the  Law  through 
faith?  God  forbid.  Yea,  we  establish  the  Law.''  This  is 
Paul's  true  doctrine,  here  and  everywhere.  It  is  identical 
with  that  of  Christ.  Perish  the  sophistry  that  would  attempt 
to  set  them  at  variance  ! 

15=^ 


174  OBLIGATION  OP  THE  SABBATH. 

Change  of  day — no  change  of  the  law.  The  transfer  attested  by  miracle. 

The  way  then  is  clear  to  look  at  the  real  question,  the  change 
OF  THE  DAY.  This  question  has  nothing  to  do  with  any  change 
of  the  Decalogue.  This  I  have  proved  beyond  dispute.  It 
concerns  merely  the  Jewish  mode  of  rechonmg  the  loeeh,  fixed 
by  the  miracle  of  the  Manna,  as  explained  by  Moses.  {Exodus 
xvi.  22 — 30.)  This  mode  of  recJconing  was  a  S2:>ecial  statute 
for  Israel.  It  never  hound  any  other  people.  It  is  alter  able  at 
the  Divine  pleasure.  All  we  want  in  the  case  is,  evidence 
that  God  has  been  pleased  to  alter  it,  and  thus  fix  the  Sabbath 
to  another  day.  "  Show  us  the  miracle,"  says  my  friend  W. 
B.  T.,  "and  it  sufficeth  us.'^  (p.  89.)  I  propose  now  to  show 
not  only  the  miracle,  but  the  Divine  explanation  of  the  mira- 
cle.    I  bespeak  an  earnest  attention. 

Let  it  be  remembered,  then,  that  the  first  explicit  declaration 
of  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  was  made  at  Cassarea  Philippi, 
about  six  months  before  our  Saviour's  death.  {Matt.  xvi.  13 
— 20. — See  Townsend's  Arrangement.)  From  that  day  Jesus 
explicitly  announced  his  approaching  Death  and  Resurrection. 
"  After  six  days,"  says  Matthew  (xvii.  1),  "  about  eight  days," 
says  Luke  (ix.  18,  28),  was  the  Transfiguration.  Why  this 
specification  of  time,  if  no  special  importance  was  attached  to 
it?  Both  forms  of  expression  indicate  a  week.  The  "eighth 
day"  of  Luke  is  particularly  remarkable,  since  this  very  term" 
was  used  to  designate  the  day  after  a  Jewish  Sabbath,  the  first 
day  of  the  iceek  (see  Lev.  xxv.  22),  particularly  among  the 
early  Christians.  {John  xx.  26.)  It  is  then  highly  probable, 
to  say  the  least,  that  the  glorious  miracle  of  the  Transfigura- 
tion was  on  that  day.  But  that  miracle  was  connected  by 
some  secret  tie  with  the  miracle  of  the  Resurrection ;  for  the 
disciples  were  "  strictly  charged"  not  to  mention  it  till  after 
Jesus  should  rise  from  the  dead.  The  Resurrection  we  know 
was  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  The  connection  of  the  two 
miracles  is  thus  fully  unfolded  by  Townsend  in  a  note  to  his 
Chronological  Arrangement  of  the  New  Testament.  (Seepart 
iv.  Mote  22,  p.  116.)     "The  other  great  purpose  of  the  action 


MR.  brown's  third  REPLY.  175 

Towxsend's  Arrangement.  Explanation  of  the  Miracle. 

on  the  mount  [of  TransJSguration]  was  to  give  a  figurative  sig- 
nification of  the  abrogation  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  and  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Christian  Dispensation,  upon  ivhich  it  was 
to  he  established.  Moses  and  Elias,  as  the  representatives  of 
the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  who  had  successively  testified  of 
the  promised  Messiah,  it  appears  to  me,  were  now  in  their 
glorified  state  permitted  to  behold  on  earth  the  magnificent 
completion  of  all  their  predictions;  and  by  their  farewell  testi- 
mony to  the  truth  of  his  Divinity  afi'ord  to  man  the  most 
powerful  evidence  that  human  reason  could  either  receive  or 
require.  By  their  testimony  thei/  achioicledged  the  accom- 
plishment of  all  their  prophecies,  and  that  the  commencement 
of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  was  established  on  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets ;  and  when  the  disciples,  in  an  ecstasy  of  happiness, 
desired  to  erect  three  tabernacles,  God  himself  proclaimed, 
*  This  is  my  beloved  Son ;  hear  ye  him  !'  Moses  and  Elias 
instantly  disappear,  overshadowed  by  the  bright  cloud,  and 
Christ  alone  remains  the  undivided  object  of  all  their  worship. 
To  Him  alone  are  they  to  build  their  altars ;  to  Him  alone  are 
they  to  look  for  happiness  and  glory  ]  and  He  shall  come  again 
with  His  holy  angels,  and  ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand 
shall  stand  before  Him.'' 

So  much  for  the  Miracle.  Now  for  the  Divine  explanation 
of  the  Miracle,  which  fixes  the  first  day  of  the  week,  or  the 
day  of  Christ's  Resurrection  as  the  Sabbath  of  the  Christian 
Dispensation. 

1.  It  is  the  Resurrection  of  ^Uhe  Lord  of  the  Sabbath.'* 
He  had  then  all  authority  to  change  the  day,  so  as  to  distin- 
guish the  new  dispensation  from  the  old.  And  to  honor  this 
day  as  His  own  chosen  day.  He  met  His  assembled  disciples 
on  it,  and  said,  Peace  be  unto  you.  Not  till  a  full  week 
afterwards  was  accomplished,  did  he  meet  with  them  again. 
{John  XX.  26.)  Was  there  no  significance  in  this  ?  Why 
did  He  not  meet  them  sooner  ?  Why  not  on  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath ? 


176  OBLIGATION  OP  THE  SABBATH. 

The  day  of  the  Resurrection— the  Christian  Sabbath. 

2.  It  is  the  Resurrection  of  tlie  Son  of  God  to  immortal 
life  in  Heaven.  It  is  for  this  reason  the  day  is  beautifully 
called  His  Birthday.  (^Ps.  ii.  7.)  "I  will  declare  the  decree; 
the  Lord  hath  said  unto  me,  Thou  art  my  Son ;  this  day  have 
I  begotten  tliee.^'  Shall  the  kings  of  the  earth  command  their 
birthdays  to  be  observed  by  their  subjects,  and  not  the  King 
of  Zion  ?  Well  might  John  Bunyan  say  :  "  Shall  God  as 
with  his  finger  point,  and  that  in  the  face  of  the  world,  at  this 
day,  saying.  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day,  &c.,  and  shall  not 
Christians  fear,  and  awake  from  their  employments,  to  worship 
the  Lord  on  this  day  ?  If  God  remembers  it,  well  may  I  ! 
If  God  says,  and  that  with  all  gladness  of  heart,  Thou  art  my 
Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee  !  may  not,  ought  not,  I 
also  to  set  this  day  apart  to  sing  the  songs  of  my  redemption 
in  ?  This  day  my  redemption  was  finished.  This  day  my 
dear  Jesus  revived.  This  day  He  was  declared  to  be  the  Son 
of  God  with  power.  ^  This  day' — after  this  day  was  come, 
God  never,  that  we  read  of,  made  mention  with  delight  of  the 
old  seventh-day  Sabbath  more.'^ 

3.  It  is  the  Resurrection  of  the  Lord  of  Angels.  Hence 
the  day  was  honored  by  their  adoration.  ^'  Again,  when  He 
bringeth  in  the  first  begotten  into  the  world  \_i.  e.  by  raising 
Him  from  the  dead],  He  saith,  and  let  all  the  angels  of  God 
worship  him."  (//c6.  i.  6.)  And  shall  not  men,  as  well  as 
angels,  worship  him  too  ?  ''  Kiss  [i.  e.  adore]  the  Son,  lest 
He  be  angry,  and  ye  perish  from  the  way  when  His  wrath  is 
kindled  but  a  little.  Blessed  are  all  they  that  put  their  trust 
in  Him."  (/^s.  ii.  12.) 

4.  It  is  the  Resurrection  of  tlie  Head  of  the  Church.  And 
hence  the  day  consecrated  by  this  glorious  event  is  given  us 
for  our  weekly  Christian  Festival.  (A\  cxviii.  24.)  W.  B.  T. 
indeed  objects  to  my  interpretation  of  this  passage  on  two 
grounds:  1.  That  a  day  of  Christian  worship  is  not  equivalent 
to  a  Sahbath.  2.  That  the  text  proves  only  the  establishment 
of  a  new  era  of  joy,  not  of  a  new  iceel'ly  festival  founded  on 


MR.  brown's  third  REPLY.  177 

"  The  day  which  the  Lord  hath  made."  The  appointed  Christian  festival. 

the  Messiah's  exaltation,  (p.  91.)  As  to  the  first,  I  will  con- 
cede to  him  that  a  day  of  devotional  rest,  divinely  appointed, 
and  of  weekly  recurrence,  is  essential  to  the  idea  of  a  Sahhath. 
And  as  to  the  second,  I  will  now  try  to  convince  him  that  such 
a  "day'^  is  really  intended  in  Ps.  cxviii.  22 — 24,  by  a  closer 
examination  of  that  interesting  prophecy. 

The  passage  reads  thus  :  "  The  Stone  which  the  builder 
refused,  is  become  the  head-stone  of  the  corner. — This  is 
THE  DAY  which  the  Lord  hath  made;  we  will  rejoice  and  be 
glad  in  it."  I  remark,  1.  The  sense  of  Scripture  is  no  more 
arbitrary  than  in  other  books,  and  therefore  the  word  "  day" 
must  here  have  a  determinate  meaning.  2.  This  must  be  its 
literal  meaning,  unless  sufficient  reasons  can  be  given  to  show 
the  contrary.  3.  The  literal  meaning  of  the  word  in  question 
is  a  period  of  twenty-four  hours  ( Gen.  i.  5,  8)  ;  and  W.  B.  T. 
has  shown  no  reasons  for  giving  it  here  the  tropical  meaning 
of  era.  4.  This  Psalm  was  actually  sung  on  the  occasion  of 
our  Lord's  triumphal  entrance  into  Jerusalem,  which  was  on 
the  first  clay  of  the  iceek  (the  week  in  which  He  died)  ;  and 
the  prophecy  was  thus  applied  to  that  day,  with  His  own  most 
explicit  and  emphatic  sanction.  For  when  some  of  the  Pha- 
risees said  unto  Him  :  Master,  rebuke  thy  disciples,  He  an- 
swered and  said  unto  them  :  "  I  tell  you  that  if  these  should 
hold  their  peace,  the  stones  would  immediately  cry  out." 
The  passage  is  quoted  six  times  in  the  New  Testament  in 
reference  to  Christ.  No  prophecy  then  has  a  more  determinate 
meaning,  or  fixed  application.  By  the  authority  of  the  Lord 
the  day  is  "  made."  How  "  made  ?"  This  word  can  have 
no  distinct  meaning,  unless  it  signifies  here  "  made  sacred  ;'^ 
and  to  agree  with  the  foregoing  verse,  it  must  mean  "  made 
sacred  to  Christ,"  in  honor  of  His  exaltation  as  "  the  head  of 
the  corner."  And  that  this  sacredness  is  to  be  recognized  by 
the  Church,  is  clear  from  the  following  words:  '' AVe  will 
exult  and  be  glad  in  it."  It  is  then  made  sacred  by  Divine 
authority  as  the  distiiujuishing  festival  of  the  Christian  Church. 


178  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Baptism,  the  Supper,  and  the  Sabbath.  Decisive  authority. 

But  if  this  new  day  be  established,  it  follows  that  the  day 
formerly  fixed  for  the  Jews  is  by  the  same  authority  now 
made  void.  For  so  the  Apostle  Paul  reasons  in  a  like  case, 
as  to  the  force  of  Ps.  ex.  4 ;  a  passage  by  the  way  whose  bear- 
ing was  before  as  little  understood,  even  by  Christians,  as  the 
one  now  under  discussion. 

It  remains,  therefore,  I  think,  a  sound  conclusion  from  the 
premises,  that  the  first  day  of  the  week  is  appointed  the  Sab- 
bath of  the  Christian  Dispensation.  For,  if  the  passage  was 
originally  applied  to  the  day  of  our  Lord's  public  manifestation 
as  the  King  of  Zion,  how  much  more  to  the  same  day  of  the 
week  (Just  one  week  after  this),  when  His  high  claim  was 
forever  demonstrated  by  his  triumphant  resurrection  from  the 
dead  ?  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  both  Baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper  were  appointed  by  our  Lord  before  His  death, 
and  confirmed  after  His  resurrection  as  perpetual  ordinances 
in  His  Church.  Why  not  also  the  distinguishing  "  stated 
day'^  of  Christian  Worship  ?  Analogy  would  lead  us  to  ex- 
pect this.  All  the  facts  of  the  case  confirm  it.  It  is  the  true 
key  to  all  the  subsequent  history — as  I  shall  hereafter  show. 
''This  is  the  day  which  the  Lord  hath  made;  we  will  rejoice 
and  be  glad  in  it."  Such,  with  slight  exceptions  (according 
to  this  prophecy),  has  been  the  consenting  language  of  the 
whole  Christian  Church,  from  that  day  to  this.  And  such,  I 
cannot  doubt,  it  will  continue  to  be,  in  despite  of  all  "  mur- 
murers  and  complainers"  like  the  Pharisees  of  that  age,  so 
long  as  the  love  of  a  crucified  and  risen  Saviour  shall  continue 
to  warm  the  bosoms  of  redeemed  and  regenerated  men.  Not 
ahsolutely,  indeed  (as  W.  B.  T.  perversely  understands  me, — 
p.  92),  but  comparatively,  will  the  wonders  of  the  original 
creation  "  cease  to  be  remembered  and  come  into  mind." 
(^Isaiah  Ixv.  17,  18.) 

My  friend  asks  for  '^  decisive  authority."  What  more 
decisive  authority  could  be  desired  ?  Here  is  the  greatest  of 
miracles,  and  a  Divine  explanation  of  its   meaning  in  fixing 


MR.  brown's  third  REPLY.  179 

The  "  Lord's  day"  a  legacy  of  the  Church.  The  inheritance  questioned. 

the  "Lord's  day."  The  Resurrection  of  Christ  is  the  centre- 
point  of  Christianity.  Everything  dear  to  a  Christian's  soul 
is  attached  to  it,  and  revolves  around  it.  It  is  the  grand 
unmistakable  "  sign"  of  the  Divine  authority  of  our  Lord. 
And  as  sure  as  He  is  our  Lord,  He  "  is  Lord  also  of  the 
Sabbath  day." 

As  you,  Messrs.  Editors,  see  fit  to  limit  me  to  one  more 
short  article,  I  will  endeavor  to  comprise  in  it  what  I  think 
most  essential,  in  order  to  bring  this  protracted  Discussion  to 
a  close.    May  a  blessing  attend  it,  even  to  my  friend  W.  B.  T. ! 

J.  N.  B. 


PART  III. 

"  This  is  the  day  which  the  Lord  hath  made ;  we  will  rejoice  and 
be  glad  in  it." — Ps.\lms  cxviii.  24. 

"  I  was  in  the  Spirit  on  the  Lord's  day." — Revelation  i.  10. 


The  "Lord's  day,"  or  the  Christian  Sabbath,  has  been  for 
eighteen  hundred  years  in  the  peaceful  possession  of  the 
Christian  Church.  She  claims  it  as  a  legacy  from  her  risen 
and  ascended  Lord.  She  attaches  to  it  for  His  sake  a  pecu- 
liar value,  independent  of  all  its  inherent  advantages,  phy- 
sical, moral,  social,  intellectual,  and  religious.  Yet  at  this 
day,  it  seems  there  are  men  who  from  some  cause,  worthy  or 
unworthy,  dispute  her  title  to  this  rich  inheritance.  My 
friend  W.  B.  T.,  in  so  doing,  evidently  thinks  that  he  is 
"doing  God  service,"  and  ridding  Christianity  of  "a  burden." 
But  let  him  look  well  to  his  work;  lest  a  voice  unmistakable 
arrest  him  with  the  startling  interrogation  that  once  smote 
Saul  of  Tarsus  to  the  soul ! 

I  would  warn,  not  threaten.  Men  belonging  to  Religious 
Establishments,  and  believing  in  the  power  of  the  Civil 
Government   over   religious   affairs,  may  easily  satisfy  them- 


180  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Religious  Establishments.  Divine  Authority — necessary. 

.selves  with  a  Sabbath  '^as  by  law  established/'  and  think 
little  of  the  need  of  Scriptural  Authority.  This  was  the 
case  with  Luther  and  Calvin,  Warburton  and  Paley, 
Whately  and  Neander.  And  possibly  even  in  this  He- 
public,  where  a  Religious  Establishment  is  wisely  forbidden 
by  the  Constitution,  my  friend  may  think  "law  and  wont'' 
of  sufficient  force  to  maintain  the  weekly  Sabbath  in  all  its 
beneficent  operations,  without  the  belief  in  its  divine  au- 
thority. He  is  not  very  explicit,  it  is  true,  on  this  point; 
but  this  is  the  most  charitable  view  of  the  matter.  To  suppose 
he  wishes  to  see  the  Sabbath  practically  abolished,  is  to  sepa- 
rate him  at  once  from  the  company  of  the  great  men  whom  he 
loves  to  quote.  If  he  has  read  them  thoroughly,  he  is  aware 
that  their  aim  was  not  to  subvert  the  JSabbath,  but  to  rescue 
the  principle  and  manner  of  its  observance  from  Pharisaic 
sophistry,  bigotry,  and  superstition.  But  the  position  of 
antagonism  is  not  usually  favorable  to  the  full  discovery  of 
truth,  or  to  its  exact  expression  in  language.  Reformers  are 
sometimes  innovators.  Earnest  minds  often,  like  pendulums, 
obey  unconsciously  the  law  of  oscillation.  Reaction  is  equal 
to  action.  And  hence  the  injurious  extremes  and  perplex- 
ing inconsistencies  of  the  distinguished  men  just  named — 
some  of  which  I  may  have  occasion  to  expose. 

But  in  this  point,  they  are  not  models  for  American 
Christians.  Whatever  be  true  in  other  countries  and  times, 
HUMAN  authority,  neither  legal  nor  ecclesiastical,  will 
satisfy  freeborn  Americans.  No  man's  conscience  will  be 
bound  here  by  anything  short  of  divine  authority — real 
or  supposed.  Let  the  opinions  of  W.  B.  T.  (as  put  forth  with 
such  rash  confidence,  and  defended  so  zealously)  generally 
prevail  in  this  country,  and  no  man  could  thereafter  observe 
the  Sabbath,  but  as  a  matter  of  "will-worship,"  or  at  best  of 
political  morality.  But  this  in  motive,  in  tendency,  and  in 
ultimate  effect,  is  to  abolish  the  Sabbath.  What  man  of  in- 
tellectual independence   would  consent  for  one  moment  to  the 


MR.  brown's  third  REPLY.  181 

Consequences,  entirely  overlooked.  Grave  charges — unbecomingly  made. 

degradation  of  upholding  a  mere  human  invention  of  this  kind  ? 
What  man  of  enlightened  conscience  but  would  recoil  from 
so  presumptuous  a  claim  of  sanctity?  What  man  of  real  piety 
could  any  longer  observe  the  day  "  as  unto  the  Lord  ?" — 
''The  Lord's  day"  would  in  fact  be  no  more ! 

IMy  friend,  indeed,  as  if  this  were  not  a  practical  question, 
where  every  man,  woman,  and  child  must  necessarily  take  a 
side,  would  waive  all  regard  to  consequences.  He  does  not 
seem  to  think  that  "  the  tree  is  known  by  its  fruits."  He 
can  give  up  the  Sabbath  as  coolly  as  the  false  mother  of  old 
consented  to  the  division  of  the  living  child.  To  him  Truth 
is  Truth,  alike  whether  she  carries  the  balm  of  life,  or  the 
weapon  of  death.  He  never  seems  to  suspect  that  Truth  is 
modest,  and  Error  brazen.  If  Truth  veils  her  countenance, 
and  shrinks  from  the  careless  eye,  he  pronounces  her  to  be 
Deceit,  or  an  Apparition  from  the  land  of  "  shadows."  And 
yet  my  friend  is  an  earnest  man.  And  much  as  I  differ  with 
him,  I  would  fain  by  the  force  of  evidence  convince  him,  and 
embrace  him  as  a  brother  still. 

He  has,  indeed  (in  closing  his  part  iv. — p.  157)  become  an 
''accuser  of  the  brethren."  He  has  brought  against  me,  and 
my  brethren  also,  charges  of  the  gravest  kind.  From  him, 
certainly,  they  come  with  an  ill  grace,  even  were  they  true. 
But  they  are  not.  The  full  refutation  of  them  will  be  found, 
I  trust,  in  my  Reply.  If  he  hear  me,  I  have  gained  my 
brother. 

If  my  friend  felt  himself  crippled  for  want  of  space  to  de- 
velop his  Argument  fully,  I  more.  His  minutest  as  well  as 
main  objections  plight  be  fairly  removed  seriatim  were  space 
allowed  me.*     But,  shut  up  to  a  single  concluding  article,  I 

*  For  example,  W.  B.  T.  calls  my  argument  on  Gen.  ii.  3,  in  proof 
of  the  Origin  of  the  Sabbath  at  the  Creation,  ^^  etymological  [p.  104), 
when  it  is  exegetical:  being  founded,  not  on  etymology,  but  on  establish- 
ed usage.  It  is  therefore  perfectly  impregnable.  His  attempted  reply,  on 
16 


182  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  root  of  all  the  errors.  The  day  temporary, — not  the  Sdbhath. 

can  only  treat  of  the  most  vital  points.  And  I  find  these  fair- 
ly involved  in  the  very  first  "  Proposition,"  on  the  Day  op 
THE  Sabbath.  On  this,  therefore,  I  have  chosen  to  concen- 
trate my  strength. 

All  difficulties  arise  from  radical  mistakes  here.  All  the 
other  five  Propositions  of  W.  B.  T.  are  but  branching  errors 
which  logically  grow  out  of  this  single  root,  and  live  or  die 
with  it.  If  the  Fourth  Commandment,  like  the  rest  of  the 
Decalogue,  is  a  universal  and  perpetual  Law,  and  the 
actual  designation  of  the  day  op  the  week  to  be  observed 
as  the  Sabbath  is  fixed  by  a  separate  temporary  statute 
(as  I  have  fully  shown  and  confirmed  by  the  unwilling  con- 
cession of  W.  B.  T.  himself),  then  it  follows  irresistibly  that 
the  Sabbath  is  not  what  W.  B.  T.  supposes,  "  a  merely  ceremo- 
nial and  Jewish  institution" — that  it  was  not  '^  repeatedly  and 
studiously  violated"  by  our  Lord,  and  that  it  was  not  set  aside 
by  the  "decree"  of  the  Apostolic  Council  at  Jerusalem. 

Again,  if  the  temporary  Jewish  statute,  by  which  the 
Sabbath  was  fixed  to  Saturday  under  that  preparatory  dis- 
pensation, was  abrogated  with  that  dispensation,  and  the 
FIRST  DAY  OP  THE  WEEK  was  established  thenceforward  as 
the  Sabbath  (or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  "the  Lord's 
day"),  then  all  the  real  force  of  what  W.  B.  T.  has  advanced, 
under  the  other  Propositions,  is  seen  to  strike  merely  against 
the  observance  of  the  Jewish  Saturday  Salhath  by  Gentile 

the  other  hand,  is  purely  ''etymological."  So  that  he  has  actually 
charged  on  me  a  fault  which  is  exclusively  his  own !  This  misrepre- 
sentation, if  designed,  is  dishonest;  if  (as  I  think),  not  designed,  is 
distressing. 

Again.  He  charges  me  with  making  an  unreal  distinction  between  the 
offices  of  the  logician  and  the  interpreter,  [p.  102.)  If  the  distinction  is 
unreal,  or  if  it  is  more  nice  than  wise,  he  must  impute  it,  not  to  me,  but 
to  his  favorite  author.  Dr.  Whatkly.  (See  Whately's  Logic,  passim.) 
It  depends  entirely  upon  his  restricted  view  of  the  province  of  Logic. 
W.  B.  T.  cannot  deny  the  distinction  without  in  the  same  proportion 
derogating  from  Dr.  Whately's  general  soundness  of  judgment.  Either 
way,  it  is  immaterial  to  my  argument. 


MR.  brown's  third  REPLY.  183 

A  "  .summary"  treatment.  Saturday  observed  till  the  Resurrection. 

Christians  under  the  new  economy ;  and  to  have  no  possible 
force  against  the  Christian  Sabbath,  or  ''the  Lord's  day." 
On  this  broad  Scriptural  view,  the  conflicting  opinions  of  all 
Christendom  may  be,  and,  I  have  no  doubt,  ultimately  will 
be,  happily  harmonized,  and  their  practice  also,  to  the  end  of 
the  world. 

That  the  Scriptural  basis  of  this  future  harmony  was  laid  at 
the  same  time  that  "  the  Stone  disallowed  of  men  was  made 
the  head  of  the  corner,"  I  think  I  have  fully  demonstrated  in 
my  last, — from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  the  new  relations 
created  by  redeeming  love,  the  grand  miracle  of  Christ's 
nesurrection,  and  the  concurrent  voice  of  prophecy,  explained 
and  sanctioned  by  our  Lord  as  ''  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  day." 
I  have  said,  further,  that  this  is  the  true  key  to  the  subse- 
quent history  of  the  Apostolic  Church.  And  this  I  now 
proceed  to  prove,  by  applying  it  successively  to  every  word  of 
that  history. 

My  friend  W.  B.  T.  makes  very  light  of  this  branch  of 
the  evidence.  The  texts  referred  to  by  me  are  disposed  of 
''summarily"  indeed!  (j9.  98.)  He  concludes  that  "there  is 
no  shadow  of  evidence  that  Jesus  or  his  apostles  changed  the 
Sabbath  day."  (p.  95.)  I  am  not  surprised  at  this.  It  is  clear 
that  he  has  not  studied  the  facts  closely,  so  as  to  perceive  their 
force  as  connected  links  in  a  chain  of  circumstantial  evidence 
— practically  and  irresistibly  confirming  the  fact  of  such  a 
change,  as  I  have  proved  by  other  evidence  already. 

For,  mark  the  connection.  When  the  body  of  our  Lord 
was  laid  in  the  tomb  on  Friday  afternoon,  the  disciples  who, 
in  their  blind  love,  had  prepared  to  embalm  it,  were  unable 
to  do  so  because  the  Jewish  "Sabbath  drew  on."  {Luke  xxiii. 
54.)  They  therefore  left  it  with  the  spices  {John  xix.  40), 
"and  rested  the  Sabbath  day,  according  to  the  commandment." 
(^Luke  xxiii.  56.)  Here  is  proof  that,  up  to  that  time,  the 
Saturday  Sabbath  was  held  sacred  by  Christ's  disciples — 
notwithstanding  W.  B.  T.,  like  the  malicious  Jews,  tries   so 


184  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Assembly  of  the  disciples  on  the  frst  day  of  the  -n-eek. 

hard  to  prove  that  our  Lord  "  broke  the  Sabbath/'  and 
"taught  men  so."  Early  on  Sunday  morning,  "while  it  was 
yet  dark/'  they  hastened  to  complete  their  intended  task, 
and  were  overwhelmed  with  astonishment  to  learn  from  attend- 
ing angels  the  glorious  fact  of  His  Resurrection — a  fact  which, 
though  foretold  in  Prophecy,  and  often  by  Christ  himself, 
they  had  never  (such  is  the  blinding  power  of  prejudice)  till 
that  moment  understood.  (John  xx.  9.)  No  wonder  then  that 
they  did  not  yet  understand  the  change  of  the  Sabbath 
day.  Hence  two  of  them,  "that  same  day,"  walked  out  to 
Emmaus  (about  eight  miles  west  of  Jerusalem),  and  were 
joined  by  Jesus.  (Luke  xxiv.  13 — 32.)  Their  testimony  on 
their  return  was  scarcely  credited  by  the  Eleven.  (Mark  xvi. 
13.)  Then  ''  the  same  day,  at  evening,"  says  John  (xx.  19 — 
23),  "being  the  first  day  of  the  week  (notice  the  em- 
phasis), when  the  doors  were  shut  where  the  disciples  luere  as- 
sembled, for  fear  of  the  Jews,  came  Jesus,  and  stood  in  the 
midst,  and  saith  unto  them, — Peace  be  unto  you.  And 
when  he  had  so  said,  he  showed  them  his  hands  and  his  side. 
Then  were  the  disciples  glad  when  they  saw  the  Lord."  Up 
to  this  moment  "  they  believed  not  for  joy  and  wonder." 
{Luke  xxiv.  41.)  Now  every  doubt  and  fear  was  dispelled ; 
their  Apostolic  commission  was  renewed,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
breathed  on  them,  in  anticipation  of  the  mightier  miracle  of 
Pentecost.  Now  therefore  for  the  first  time  did  they  under- 
stand the  full  import  of  the  words  in  Ps.  cxviii.  14 — 26,  espe- 
cially of  verse  24,  which  I  have  so  fully  explained  in  my  last. 
Now,  of  this  FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK  they  could  sing  with 
understanding,  "  This  is  the  day  which  the  Lord  hath 

MADE  ;  WE  WILL  REJOICE  AND  BE  GLAD  IN  IT." 

That  they  did  then  understand  that  the  first  day  of  the 
WEEK  was  henceforth  to  be  the  "  Lord's  day,"  and  to  be  ob- 
served by  Christians  as  such,  is  evident  from  the  fact  next 
recorded.  {John  xx.  26 — 29.)  "  And  after  eight  days,  again 
his  disci];>les  were  ivitJiin,  and  Thomas  [who  was  before  absent] 


MR.  brown's  third  REPLY.  185 

The  "  day  of  rejoicing"  understood.      The  "  eighth"  day.     Townsend's  comment. 

witli  them.  Then  came  Jesus,  the  doors  being  shut,  and 
stood  in  the  midst,  and  said,  peace  be  unto  you."  The 
phrase  "  after  eight  days,"  is  supposed  by  W.  B.  T.  to 
designate  one  more  day  than  a  week.  (p.  93.)  But  this  is 
contrary  to  Jewish  usage,  as  well  as  Christian.  As  well  might 
he  object  to  Christ's  resurrection  on  the  third  day,  from  the 
phrase  "  after  three  days  I  will  rise  again."  [Matt,  xxvii.  63, 
64.)  Yet  the  Jews  themselves  understood  by  this  phrase 
^'  the  third  day,"  and  not  the  fourth,  as  we  would  be  apt  to 
do.  The  truth  isj  in  such  phrases,  a  part  of  the  day  preceding 
the  point  of  reckoning  is  included.  The  "eighth  day"  is  a 
well-known  proverbial  expression  for  the  day  following  the 
Jewish  Sabbath,  that  is,  for  the  first  day  of  the  week.  So 
this  text  has  been  understood  from  the  beginning,  unless  I  am 
deceived.  So  Hammond,  G-ill,  Doddridge,  and  others  un- 
derstood it.  Townsend,  the  learned  Harmonist,  says  on  this 
passage ;  "  The  first  appearances  of  our  Lord  to  his  Apostles 
appear  to  have  taken  place  uniformly  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week  ;  and  from  their  consequent  observance  of  that  day,  ori- 
ginated the  Christian  Sabbath."  Such,  also,  is  the  opinion  of 
John  Bunyan.  But  the  context  greatly  strengthens  this 
opinion.  It  clearly  indicates  that  Jesus  did  not  appear  after 
the  day  of  His  resurrection  until  this  da}^,  and  then  chiefly  to 
remove  the  doubts  of  Thomas.  But  ichy  wa.it  a  fidl  week  to 
do  this,  unless  to  honor  the  weekly  Sabbath,  and  to  establish 
the  change  of  the  day  to  commemorate  His  resurrection  ? 
This  supposition,  and  this  alone,  harmonizes  with  all  the 
previous  evidence  to  the  same  point.  On  this  First  day,  He 
rode  as  King  into  Jerusalem ;  on  the  First  day.  He  rose  from 
the  dead ;  on  the  First  day,  He  removed  the  last  doubt  from 
the  mind  of  His  most  incredulous  Apostle.  Thus  was  the 
day  made  sacred. 

But  a  higher  honor  still  was  in  store  for  this  day.  The  day 
of  Pentecost,  it  is  well  known,  was  always  on  the  First  day  of 
the  week.  {Lev.  xxiii.  15 — 21.)     To  this  day,  the  ascended 

10* 


186  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  day  of  Pentecost— the  first  day.  Jewish  feelings  respected. 

Saviour  reserved  the  final,  public,  decisive  proof  of  His  being 
in  possession  of  His  throne  of  Glory.  (John  vii.  39,  xvi.  7 — 
15.)     On  this  day,  therefore,  and  not  till  it  was  "  fully  come,^^ 
the  disciples  at  Jerusalem  ^^  assembled  with  one  accord  in  one 
place.''     Why  not  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  which  was  always 
the  day  before  the  Pentecost  ?     Should  any  choose  to  say  they 
met  daily,  both  before  and  after,  that  only  heightens  the  dis- 
tinguishing glory  put  on  this  FIRST  day  of  the  week  by  the 
Saviour;  for   this,  and  no   other.  He  certainly  selected,  on 
which  to  bestow  the  richest  baptism  of  His  spirit,  and  the 
richest  harvest  of  regenerated  souls  that  was  ever  gathered  in 
one  day  into  His  Church.     When  God  established  the  Jeioish 
Sabbath  {Exod.  xvi.  27),  no  manna  fell  on  the  seventh  day, 
because  it  was  the  day  of  Holy  Rest ;  but,  on  the  First  day, 
from  the  Pentecost  onward,  what  showers  of  spiritual  manna 
have  fallen  on  the  Church  of  Christ !     The  blessing  of  God 
originally  rested  on  the  seventh  day.     Beyond  all  dispute,  the 
day  has  been  charigedj  and  the  Divine  blessing  has  since  rested 
071  the  First  Day,  in  every  age,  onward  to  our  oion.    It  is  worthy 
of  remark,  too,  that  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  always  a  second 
Sabbath  to  the  Jews,  a  day  of  holy  convocation,  and  rest  from 
servile   work.     How  fit   a  day  of  public   transition   to   the 
Christian  Sabbath  !     How  inoffensive,  how  smooth,  how  beau- 
tiful a  transition  !     How  worthy  of  the  condescending  love 
and  admirable  wisdom  of  our  ascended  Lord,  that  the  Christian 
*'  Lord's  day"  should  thus  begin,  amid  the  most  glorious  and 
unmistakable  tokens  of  His  power !     For  forty  years  after, 
as  long  as  Jerusalem  stood,  no  wanton  wound  was  ever  inflicted 
on  Jewish  feeling  by  refusing  to  observe  the  old  abrogated 
day ;  but  everywhere  advantage  was  taken  of  it  by  the  Apos- 
tles to   introduce  in  the    Jewish  Synagogues  the  Gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ.     It  was  only  when  Gentile  Christians  weakly 
conformed  to  it  as  a  part  of  the  Jewish  ritual  necessary  to  sal- 
vation, thus  sacrificing  the  substance  of  the   Gospel  to  the 
shadow,  that  Paul  lifted  up  the  voice  of  warning  and  remon- 


MR.  brown's  third  REPLY.  187 

The  first  day,  in  the  Corinthian  Church.  Paul  at  Troas,  on  Sunday. 

strance.  This  last  fact  fully  explains  the  meaning  of  those 
texts  so  often  quoted,  and  so  sadly  perverted  by  W.  B.  T.,  and 
on  which  he  bases  his  unwarranted  attack  upon  the  Christian 
Sabbath.  {Gal  iv.  9—11;  i?om.  xiv.  5—9;  Col  ii.  10—16.) 

It  is  worthy  of  attention  that,  a  few  months  before  writing 
his  Epistle  to  the  Komans,  Paul  wrote  his  first  to  the  Corinth- 
ians, in  which  (xvi.  1 — 4)  he  gives  order  for  the  observance 
of  the  FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK,  as  the  day  sacred  to  Christian 
Charity.  According  to  the  views  of  W.  B.  T.  on  Rom.  xiv. 
5 — 9,  Paul  at  the  same  time,  as  it  were  in  the  same  breath, 
designates  this  day,  and  destroys  it — abrogates  and  honors  it. 
According  to  my  view,  Paul  recognizes  it  as  the  "  Lord's  day,^' 
by  saying  that  "he  that  observes  it,  observes  it  unto  the 
Lorcl.^'  For,  since  it  is  clear  from  the  context  that  the  day 
in  question  is  observed  unto  Christ,  as  "  Lord  both  of  the 
dead  and  of  the  living,''  how  could  such  a  thing  be  possible, 
but  on  the  supposition  that  Christ  has  set  apart  the  day  as  His 
own?  Hence  it  follows  that  he  who  doubts  this,  like  my 
friend  W.  B.  T.,  is  the  one  who  is  "weak  in  faith." 

This  will  appear  still  more  evident  from  Acts  xx.  6,  7. 
"  And  o?i  the  First  Day  of  the  loeek,  when  the  discij)Jes  came 
together  to  break  Ircad,  Paul  preached  unto  them."  This  pas- 
sage is  so  decisive  of  the  custom  of  the  Gentile  churches,  under 
the  eye  and  sanction  of  the  inspired  Apostles,  as  to  startle 
even  W.  B.  T.  himself.  But  he  attempts  to  evade  it  by  sup- 
posing,  contrary  to  the  express  words  of  the  text,  that  this 
meeting  was  held  on  Saturday  evening,  and  that  Paul  had  so 
little  regard  to  the  First  day  of  the  week  as  to  purpose  re- 
commencing his  journey  on  that  day  !  (p.  94, — note.)  A  more 
gratuitous  and  glaring  perversion  of  a  plain  text  I  never  met 
with.  As  the  glory  of  this  new  discovery  is  all  his  own,  he 
may  safely  be  left  "  alone  in  his  glory."  Few,  I  think,  will 
covet  to  share  it  with  him.  I  will  only  observe  that  the  pre- 
ceding verse  shows  that  Paid  had  waited  a  whole  iceek  at 
Troasj  to  enjoy  the   opportunity  of  meeting  his   assembled 


188  OBLIGATION  OP  THE  SABBATH. 

Positive  proof.         Paul,  and  John.  "  The  Lord's  day" — a  Divine  ordinance.      | 

brethren  on  their  "stated  day'^  of  worship,  and  this  day  is  ex- 
pressly designated  as  "the  FIRST  day  op  the  week."  Why 
was  this  day  so  observed  by  the  church,  if  not  appointed  by 
her  Head  ?  All  "  will-worship,"  all  subjection  to  "ordinances 
after  the  commandments  and  doctrines  of  men,"  was  sternly 
denounced  by  Paul.  {Col.  ii.  20 — 22.)  His  practice,  then,  at 
Troas,  is  positive  proof  that  he  regarded  the  first  day  of  the 
week  as  the  Christian  Sabbath.  But  if  Paul  thus  practically 
turns  against  W.  B,  T.,  our  friend's  whole  foundation  sinks 
under  him,  for  on  Paul  he  has  (in  fancy)  been  building  his 
entire  argument. 

But  if  Paul  is  against  W.  B.  T.,  still  more  explicitly  is 
"  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved."  For  in  the  very  last  book 
of  the  New  Testament,  John  assures  us,  "  I  was  in  the 
Spirit  071  the  Lord's  drnj^  This  text,  says  W.  B.  T.,  per- 
fectly confounded,  "  proves — nothing  at  all !"  (p.  94.)  Just 
so,  once  at  Damascus,  dazzled  by  a  glory  too  bright  for  his 
weak  vision,  an  enemy  of  Christ,  for  a  season,  was  struck 
blind.  What  can  be  meant  by  "the  Lord's  day,"  here,  but 
a  day  dedicated  to  the  Lord,  and  that  too  hy  His  own  author- 
ity? What  is  meant  by  "the  Lord's  supper"  (1  Cor.  xi. 
20)  but  the  Supper  observed  in  the  Christian  church,  by  His 
own  authority,  in  memory  of  Him  ?  No  mortal  ever  doubted 
the  meaning  of  the  latter  phrase  of  designation.  Equally 
clear  and  certain  is  the  former.  The  "  Lord's  day"  cannot 
here  mean  the  day  of  judgment.  Neither  can  it  mean  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  ]  for  that,  as  W.  B.  T.  himself  contends,  was 
abrogated,  and  of  course  could  be  "the  Lord's  day"  no  long- 
er. But  here  is  "the  Lord's  day"  in  the  Christian  church, 
at  the  close  of  the  Apostolic  age,  as  such,  too  well  known  to 
need  explanation,  sanctioned  by  the  last  of  the  Apostles  of 
Christ,  and  by  Christ  himself,  indeed,  with  the  last  vision  of 
His  glory  accorded  to  man  on  earth.  If  no  one  (the  "  Friends" 
excepted)  pretends  to  doubt  that  the  "  Lord's  table,"  "  the 
Lord's  cup,"  and  "  the  Lord's  Supper"  (1  Cor.  xi.)  prove  the 


MR.  brown's  third  REPLY.  189 

Objections  urged  against  a  substitution  of  the  Lord's  day. 

existence  of  an  Ordinance  of  universal  and  perpetual  obliga- 
tion under  the  Christian  Dispensation,  how  idle  is  such  a  doubt 
in  reference  to  "  the  Lord's  day."  Honest  men  should 
blush  to  own  such  a  doubt.  The  truth  is,  my  friend  is  in  a 
dilemma  like  that  of  the  Jews,  when  Jesus  demanded  of  them 
the  origin  of  the  Baptism  of  John.  And  they  said :  "We  can- 
not tell."  So  my  perplexed  friend  says  :  "This  text  proves — 
nothing  !"  From  my  heart  I  pity  him.  "  Whosoever  shall 
fall  on  this  Stone  shall  be  broken,  but  on  whomsoever  it  shall 
fall,  it  will  grind  him  to  powder."  {3IaU.  xxi.  44.) 

My  friend  does  indeed  apparently  concede,  with  Dr.  Whate- 
LY,  "that  there  are  sufficiently  plain  marks  of  the  early 
Christians  having  observed  ^the  Lord's  day'  as  a  religious 
festival."  But  that  it  was  substituted  as  "  the  Sabbath"  of 
the  Christian  dispensation,  he  denies,  on  the  following  grounds  : 
1.  The  "  vital  word"  Sahhath  is  wanting,  (p.  93.)  2.  The  first 
disciples  met  on  other  days  also  for  Christian  worship,  {p.  94.) 
3.  "All  of  them  who  were  Jews  actually  continued  themselves 
to  observe  the  Mosaic  Sabbath."  (p.  95.)  4.  The  early  Christian 
writers  among  the  Gentiles  exhort  Christians  not  to  keep  the 
Sabbath,  but  the  Lord's  day,  on  which  Christ  our  Life  arose 
from  the  dead.  5.  "It  was  not  till  erroneous  views  of  the  day 
of  Christian  worship  began  to  be  entertained,  that  it  was  ever 
supposed  to  ^  absorb  into  itself  the  authority  of  the  original 
law' — the  fourth  commandment."  (p.  99, — note.')  And  6. 
These  views  are  sustained  by  several  distinguished  moderns, — 
as  Luther,  Melancthon,  Cranmer,  Calvin,  Wiiately, 
and  Neander. 

I  give  my  friend  credit  for  great  acuteness  and  exten- 
sive research — on  one  side  of  this  question.  For  the  sake  of 
his  own  investigations,  as  well  as  of  his  great  authorities,  I  acquit 
him  of  any  wilful  rejection  of  the  Lord's  day,  as  the  Christian 
Sabbath.  I  sympathize  with  him,  indeed,  as  a  man  once  like 
tempted.  I  feel  the  force  of  the  old  saying  :  "  He  that  never 
doubted,  never  believed." 


190  OBLIGATION  OP  THE  SABBATH. 

Human  opinions,  of  no  account.  Wai-ds  not  "vital," — but  things. 

But  I  live  now  for  Truth  and  Right.  I  would  not  be 
deceived  even  by  illustrious  names.  All  the  great  men  he 
quotes  have  erred,  as  my  friend  will  concede,  on  such  points 
as  Infant  Baptism,  and  the  Union  of  Church  and  State. 
They  may  then  have  erred  as  to  this  point.  If  is  a  practical 
question.  Vast  consequences,  individual  and  social,  hang  on  the 
decision.  For  our  personal  judgment  and  its  practical  influ- 
ence, on  this  very  subject,  I  am  admonished,  both  by  Christ 
and  his  Apostle,  that  "  every  one  of  us  shall  give  account  of 
himself  to  God.''  (3Iatt.  v.  19 ;  Eom.  xiv.  12.)  Human  opinions 
really  decide  nothing  here.  Names  equally  illustrious,  if  not 
more  numerous,  are  found  arrayed  on  the  other  side — that  is, 
in  favor  of  the  moral  and  perpetual  obligation  of  the  Sabbath. 
EusEBius  and  Athanasius  among  the  ancients :  among  the 
moderns,  Knox,  Beza,  even  Calvin  himself,  the  Westmin- 
ster divines,  Owen,  Bunyan,  Watts,  Doddridge,  Edwards, 
Pearson,  Horsley,  Wilson,  Chalmers,  Wardlaw,  Wood, 
DwiGHT,  Alexander,  Beecher,  Kitto,  Wayland. 

Leaving  then  human  authorities,  let  us  look  all  the  real 
evidence  calmly  in  the  face.  I  ask,  then.  What  is  the  real 
force  of  the  objections  urged  by  my  friend  ? 

1.  Is  there  anything  ^Wital"  in  the  word  "  Sabbath,' * 
that  its  absence  should  decide  the  question?  True  vitality 
belongs  to  things,  not  words.  If  we  find  the  thing — the  weekly 
day  of  religious  rest  and  convocation,  established  by  Divine 
Authority  in  the  Christian  Church  on  "the  first  day  of  the 
week" — is  it  not  the  merest  verbal  trifling  to  dispute  about 
the  name  ?  If  my  friend  prefers,  with  the  Apostle,  to  call  it 
"  the  Lord's  day,"  and  as  such  admits  its  obligation,  I  will  be 
the  last  man  to  quarrel  with  him.  If  he  refuses  to  do  this,  I 
must  class  him  with  the  Jesuit,  who,  in  a  debate  with  me,  de- 
nied the  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures,  because  the  word  was 
wanting  in  2  Tim.  iii.  15 — 17.  But  I  am  persuaded  better 
things  of  my  friend  than  this  Jesuitic  quibbling.  •  He  is  at 


MR.  brown's  third  REPLY.  191 

Other  objections  unimportant.  A  Tanishing  dx-eam. 

least  a  manly  foe.     I  hope  he  will  yet  be  a  cordial^  Christian 
friend. 

2.  If  the  first  disciples  did  also  meet  on  other  days,  what 
boots  it  to  this  argument  ?     So  now  do  ice. 

3.  If  the  Apostles  and  Jewish  Christians  continued  to  observe 
the  Jewish  Sabbath  also,  among  their  own  countrymen,  what 
does  it  prove  but  their  kindness,  their  devout  spirit,  and  their 
readiness  to  seize  every  occasion  of  doing  good  ?  So  would 
any  Christian  Missionary  among  the  Jews  do  now.  So  have  I 
done  with  pleasure  among  conscientious  Seventh-day  Baptists 
— some  of  whom  I  regard  as  among  "  the  excellent  of  the 
earth." 

4.  If  the  early  Christian  writers  "  exhort  Gentile  Christ- 
ians not  to  observe  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  but  the  Lord's  day," 
it  is  but  to  check  this  condescension  from  degenerating  into 
conformity  and  superstition.  If  they  represent  that  Sabbath 
as  part  of  a  sliadowy  and  superseded  Dispensation,  what  is  that 
to  the  Argument  ?     Do  ice  not  say  the  same  ? 

5.  This  statement  of  my  friend  requires  no  answer.  It  is 
a  mere  hegging  of  the  question. 

6.  The  argument  from  Human  Authority  I  have  answered 
already. 

And  now  is  this  all  my  friend  has  to  urge  in  the  shape  of 
objection  to  the  Scriptural,  comprehensive,  all-harmonizing 
view  which  I  have  advocated  ?  Yes,  this  is  all — absolutely  all. 
And  each  of  these  objections,  when  approached  and  examined 
calmly,  in  succession,  comes  to  nothing  !  It  vanishes  "  like  a 
dream  when  one  awaketh,"  and  leaves  '^  the  Lord's  day"  in 
full  force,  from  the  day  of  His  resurrection  to  the  end  of  the 
world,  as  the  true  Christian  Sabbath.  The  Church  still  sings, 
as  in  the  days  of  her  youth,  ''  This  is  the  day  which  the  Lord 
has  made ;  we  will  rejoice  and  be  glad  in  it."  May  we,  vrith 
all  her  true  members,  always  be  "in  the  spirit  on  the  Lord's 
day." 

The  only  exception  to  this  are  painful   ones.     Our  Lord 


192  OBLIGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Lax  views  of  Luther  and  Melancthon.        "  Fruits."        Doctrine  of  Calvin. 

intimates,  in  Matt.  v.  19,  that  lax  views  of  the  Ten  Command- 
ments, or  some  of  them  at  least,  might  be  embraced  and  pro- 
pagated by  some  Ministers  of  the  Gospel.  My  friend  has 
chosen  on  this  point  the  ungracious  task  of  Ham  to  Noah. 
Lax  views  of  the  Fourth  Commandment  by  Luther  and 
Melancthon  have  borne  tlieir  natural  fruit  in  Germany. 
What  that  fruit  is  may  be  learned  from  Dr.  Robinson,  in  the 
Biblical  Repository,  vol.  i.  pp.  440 — 446.  I  will  quote  a 
single  sentence  from  this  impartial  witness,  written  after  long 
residence  in  the  land  of  Luther.  "  To  an  American  it  is 
a  striking  and  painful  sight  to  enter  the  house  of  God,  and  find 
it  almost  uniformhj  destitute  of  worshippers.  The  preacher  is 
there ;  the  services  are  there ;  the  voice  of  song  rises  from 
the  Choir  and  Organ ;  but  a  worshipping  assemhly  can  hardly 
be  said  to  be  there  !"  Can  any  one  doubt,  after  this,  whose 
opinions  of  the  Sabbath  are  right  ?  '^  Ye  shall  know  them 
hy  their  fruits.^' 

My  friend  has  quoted  a  lax  opinion  from  Calvin.  Yet 
Calvin's  general  doctrine  and  that  of  his  school  was  sound. 
The  incontrovertible  evidence  of  this  is  now  before  me,  in  the 
^'  Propositions  and  Principles  of  Divinity,  propounded 
and  disputed  [discussed]  in  the  University  of  Geneva,  under 
M.  Theodore  Beza,  and  M.  Anthonie  Faius,  Professors 
of  Divinity.  Translated  out  of  Latin  into  English.  Edin- 
burgh, 1591."  I  will  quote  from  this  rare  book  their  well- 
weighed  conclusion  {pp.  80,  81):  "We  may,  therefore, 
justly  affirm  that  the  Apostles,  by  the  direction  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  instead  of  that  seventh  day  observed  under 
the  Law,  did  appoint  that  day  which  was  the  first  in  the 
creation  of  the  former  world  )  yet  not  therefore  because  it  was 
the  first  in  that  work  of  the  creation,  but  because  that  Christ 
by  His  resurrection  upon  that  day  did  bring  forth  that  new  and 
eternal  light  of  another  world ;  and  therefore  this  day  hath 
been  named  the  Lord's  day,  ever  since  the  time  of  the  Apos- 
tles."— ''  The  observance  of  the  Lord's  day  doth  not  forbid 


193 

Principles  held  by  Beza,  and  Faius.  Tartial  quotations. 

sermons  or  prayers  to  be  on  other  days ;  but  rather  commandeth 
a  certain  peculiar  and  a  solemn  profession  of  the  external  wor- 
ship of  God  upon  that  day  in  the  public  congregation.  The 
Lord  herein  dealing  most  mercifully  with  us,  in  that  He 
granteth  us  six  days  to  bestow  ourselves  in  a  holy  sort  in  our 
worldly  business,  and  requireth  no  more  to  Himself  but  one 
of  seven.  The  recollection  of  which  seven  days,  being 
fetched  from  the  creation  of  the  world,  doth  remain  the  length 
of  all  ages  and  times." 

Whatever  then  were  the  private  opinions  of  Calvin  (who 
died  in  1564),  these  were  the  principles  publicly  taught, 
(and  defended  against  all  disputants),  after  his  death,  in  his 
favorite  University,  under  Beza  his  bosom  friend,  biographer, 
and  successor.  If  Calvin  really  meant  to  stigmatize  them 
as  "  the  dreams  of  false  prophets,'^  this  fact  of  their  subse- 
quent vindication  and  triumph  is  one  of  the  most  instructive 
facts  in  the  History  of  Christian  Doctrine  or  Morals.  How 
fine  an  illustration  of  an  American  Poet's  prophetic  song ! — 

*'  Truth  crushed  to  earth,  -will  rise  again! 
The  eternal  years  of  God  are  hers  ; 
But  error,  wounded,  writhes  in  pain, 
And  dies  amid  her  worshippers." 

I  have  done.  The  Sabbath  of  my  God  is  vindicated.  One 
word  in  vindication  of  myself,  and  I  shall  gladly  lay  down  my 
pen. 

The  last  paragraph  of  my  friend  W.  B.  T.  (in  part  i.  of 
his  Reply, — j?.  101)  requires  notice  before  I  close.  It  touches 
my  honor  and  my  heart.  Let  me  then  say  distinctly  that  I  do 
not  impute  to  him  any  intention  of  making  unfair  quotations,  or 
of  giving  them  a  wrong  coloring.  I  believe  him  as  incapable 
of  this  injustice  as  myself.  Yet  such  an  ajjpearance  is  often 
inseparable  from  partial  extracts,  like  those  he  has  made  from 
Calvin  and  Bunyan.  With  regard  to  Calvin,  the  fact  may 
be  verified  in  a  few  moments  by  reading,  in  Vol.  1.  of  his  In- 
17 


194  OBLIGATION  OP  THE  SABBATH. 

An  extract  from  Buntan.  Conclusion. 

stitutes,  the  single  section  on  the  Fourth  Commandment.  And 
as  to  BuNYAN,  the  ^^  Epistle  to  the  Reader,"  prefixed  to  his 
Treatise  on  the  Sabbath,  will  make  the  matter  clear.  I  quote 
a  sentence  or  two  :  "  Some  may  think  it  strange,  since  God's 
church  has  always  been  well  furnished  with  sound  grounds 
and  reasons  by  so  many  wise  and  godly  men,  for  proof  that 
the  First  day  of  the  weeh  is  eur  true  Christian  Sabbath  that 
I  should  now  offer  this  small  treatise  upon  the  same  account.'' 
Again,  Bunyan  says  explicitly  :  "  A  Sabbath  for  holy  worship 
is  moral ;  but  this  or  that  day  appointed  for  that  service  is 
sanctified  by  precept,  or  approved  example.  The  timing  then 
of  a  Sabbath  for  us  lies  in  God,  not  man  : — Grod  always 
reserving  to  Himself  a  power  to  alter,  and  change  both  time 
and  modes  of  worship  according  to  his  own  will." 

Now,  in  whatever  details  I  differ  from  Bunyan  or  Calvin, 
it  is  clear  that  our  fundamental  j^ositions  are  the  same.  I 
commend  this  fact  to  my  friend  W.  B.  T.  But  whether  we 
agree  or  differ  with  these  eminent  men  on  this  subject,  God 
grant  that  we  may  emulate  their  practical  virtues,  their 
devoted  piety,  their  unwearied  labors  for  the  salvation  and 
welfare  of  their  fellow-men.  May  crowns  as  bright  be  ours 
in  the  day  of  the  Lord's  coming ! 

J.  N.  B. 


THE  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 


REPLY  TO  ^'J.  N.  B; 


PART  I. 

CONSIDERATION  OF  THE  SABBATH  LAW. 

*'"What  thing  soever  I  command  you,  observe  to  do  it;  thou  shalt 
not  add  thereto,  nor  diminish  from  it!"  .  .  .  .  "But  the  seventh  day 
is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God." — Deuteroxomy  xii.  32 ;  and  v.  14. 

"Whosoever,  therefore,  shall  break  one  of  these  least  commandments, 
and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called  least  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven." — (Matthew  v.  19.)  "  For  whosoever  shall  keep  the  whole 
Law,  and  yet  offend  in  one  point,  he  is  guilty  of  all." — James  ii.  10. 

"  Thou  that  makest  thy  boast  of  the  Law,  through  breaking  the 
Law  dishonorest  thou  God  ?" — Romans  ii.  23. 

"  How  do  ye  say,  We  are  wise,  and  the  Law  of  the  Lord  i^  tcith  us?" 
— Jeremiah  viii.  8. 

"  Full  well  ye  reject  the  commandment  of  God,  that  ye  may  keep 
your  own  tradition." — Mark  vii.  9. 


Without  intending  to  prejudge  tlie  resources  of  Sabbata- 
rianism, or  to  depreciate  the  arguments  my  friend  has  advanced 
in  its  support,  I  am  constrained  to  think  that  the  effort  he  has 
expended  in  his  last  Reply  ver}^  much  exceeds  the  execution 
he  has  effected.  I  regret  that  he  has  seen  proper  to  waive  the 
consideration  of  the  five  main  "Propositions,"  and  restrict 
himself  to  the  introductory  one ;  since  my  earnest  desire  has 
been  to  elicit  all  the  important  points  vriiich  could  readily  be 
suggested  on  either  side,  satisfied  that  such  a  presentation 


196  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

A  specific  "  day"  enjoined  :  and  that  day — Saturday. 

would  in  itself  be  sufficient  to  establish  (in  tlie  minds  *  of  the 
reflecting)  the  cause  of  Scripture  and  of  Right,  of  Reason 
and  of  Truth. 

J.  N.  B.  remarks,  in  part  hi.  of  his  Reply  :  ^'  All  the 
other  five  Propositions  of  W.  B.  T,  are  but  branching  errors, 
which  logically  grow  out  of  this  single  root,  and  live  or  die 
with  it.^'  (p.  182.)  So  be  it !  I  am  content  to  accept  the 
issue.  In  his  former  Reply,  however  (p.  55),  he  considered 
that  "the  main  strength  and  sole  hope  of  my  friend,  W.  B.  T., 
lies  in  the  Second  of  the  '  Six  Propositions'  he  defends." 
It  is  encouramno;  to  find  that  J.  N.  B.  now  feels  his  weakest 
point  to  be  at  the  very  outset  of  his  task.  "  Shut  up  to  a 
single  concluding  article,"  says  he,  "  I  can  only  treat  of  the 
most  vital  points.  And  I  find  these  fairly  involved  in  the  very 
first  Proposition,  on  the  Day  of  the  Sabbath.  On  this,  there- 
fore, I  have  chosen  to  concentrate  my  strength."   (p.  182.) 

The  Discussion  then  is  narrowed  down  by  my  friend  to  the 
single  point — The  Day  required  hy  the  Sahhath  laic.  What 
is  the  intent  and  requirement  of  the  fourth  commandment  ? 
Does  it  indicate  any  exclusive  portion  of  time  as  its  especial 
object?  And  if  so,  have  we  the  means  of  determining  what 
that  exclusive  portion  of  time  is  ?  Both  these  queries  have 
already  been  answered  affirmatively.  The  commandment  not 
only  explicitly  designates  a  particular  "day"  for  sanctification, 
but  "that  Saturday  is  the  Sabbath  enjoined  in  the  Decalogue, 
is  as  certain  as  human  knowledge  can  be,  even  concerning  the 
Bible  itself." 

In  reply  to  this  statement,  J.  N.  B.  says  :  "In  this  I 
entirely  differ  from  him.  Had  he  said  :  ^  that  Saturday  is  the 
Sabbath  enjoined  on  the  Jews,  is  as  certain  as  human  know- 
ledge can  be,'  I  would  have  at  once  agreed  with  him."  {p.  163.) 
The  futility  of  this  distinction  will  be  apparent  presently. 
Meanwhile,  I  am  gratified  with  the  frank  admission  of  my 
friend  that  "  Saturday  is  the  Sabbath  enjoined  on  the  Jews," 
and  as  there  is  no  record,  within  or  without  the  Scriptures,  of 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.  197 

The  universal  and  exclusive  designation  of  the  day. 

the  Sabbath  having  ever  been  "enjoined"  on  any  people,  ex- 
cepting "on  the  Jews"  (and  those  sojourning  "within  their 
gates"),  the  obligation  of  Saturday,  under  the  law,  is  clearly 
commensurate  with  the  obligation  of  the  institution. 

But  how  is  Saturdai/  "enjoined  on  the  Jews?"  Simply, 
as  I  before  remarked,  "  by  adopting  the  universal  designation 
of  a  well-recognized  distinction."  If  the  word  "  seven," 
having  been  in  familiar  use  long  before  the  Sabbath  law, 
required  no  legal  definition,  so  "  the  seventh  day"  of  the  week, 
having  been  long  antecedently  established,  as  little  stood  in 
need  of  explanation.  Hence,  in  the  very  outset  of  the  Sab- 
batic regulation,  we  find  no  hint  of  any  date  of  computation. 
{Exod.  xvi.  5.)  It  would  have  been  superfluous.  As  ration- 
ally might  the  word  "  day"  have  been  defined.  It  requires, 
then,  no  very  profound  research,  or  legal  acumen,  to  discover 
with  precision,  in  this  case,  the  meaning  of  the  lawgiver  and 
the  application  of  the  law.  Both  in  the  Decalogue  and  in 
the  preparatory  enactment  just  preceding  (^Exod.  xx.  10;  and 
"Xvi.  26),  the  language  is  most  explicit:  X^^^  Q^'  {yom  lia- 
shihingi)  "day  'the  seventh'  is  the  Sabbath."  To  all  who 
understood  the  language,  misconception  and  equivocation  were 
alike  impossible.  The  law  appointed  a  specific  "  day"  in  the 
most  perspicuous  manner  possible  ]  it  described  the  day  in- 
tended by  using  the  appropriate  name  of  that  day,  and  the 
onlij  name  that  day  had  !  As  I  expressed  myself  in  my 
former  Reply  (p.  88)  :  "  The  term  '  Sunday'  is  not  more 
precisive  in  our  law  than  is  the  term  ^ ha-shibinrji^  in  that  of 
the  Hebrews.  It  is  applicable  to  no  '  seventh  day'  but 
SaturdayJ^ 

But,  says  my  friend,  in  reply :  "  This  last  remark  is  the 
purest  assumption.  As  it  is  by  no  means  self-evident,  I  must 
demand  ample  proof  before  I  can  admit  its  truth.  Is  the  proof 
found  in  '  the  universal  designation  of  a  well-recognized  dis- 
tinction V  If  so,  then  the  inference  irresistibly  follows  that 
the  seventh-day  Sabbath  [!]  was  universally  recognized  he  fore 

17* 


198  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  designation,  long  antecedent  to  the  Sabbath  law. 

the  giving  of  the  Decalogue  at  Sinai.  But  this  is  coming  on  to 
my  ground^  and  abandoning  his  own.  To  avoid  this,  will  my 
friend  say  the  seventh  day  was  determined  by  the  giving  of 
the  manna  ?  This  I  understand  him  to  do  in  these  words  : 
^  Saturday  is  the  seventh  day  says  God  by  the  manna.'  But 
this  again  is  abandoning  his  original  position,  and  coming  over 
to  mine."  (p.  163.)  Not  quite  so  fast.  It  by  no  means  so 
"  irresistibly  follows  that  the  seventh-day  Sahhath  was  uni- 
versally recognized"  previously,  because  "  the  seventh  clai/^' 
was  so  recognized ;  any  more  than  it  follows  that  the  seventh 
day  Sabbath  is  now  universally  recognized  because  "  the 
seventh  day"  is.  The  Egyptians  long  previously  had  the 
week  and  "the  seventh  day,"  but  they  certainly  had  not  the 
"  Sabbath."  As  little  does  it  follow  that  "  the  seventh  day 
was  determined  by  the  manna,"  because  God  said  by  the 
manna,  "Saturday  is  the  'seventh  day'"  of  the  law.  The 
seventh  day  was  not  "determined  by  the  manna."  It  had 
been  "determined"  centuries  before.  It  was  determined  when 
i\\Q  loeek  was  instituted;  and  without  this  " determination," 
there  never  could  have  been  the  "  week."  As  to  the  "ample 
proof"  demanded  for  my  previous  assertion  (p.  88),  it  is  found 
in  the  fact  that  only  one  day  of  the  week  either  was  or  could 
be,  yom  ha-shihingi,  "  day  the  seventh."  Day  Ha-Shihingi 
was  indisputably  much  older  than  the  Jewish  Sabbath  law, 
and,  therefore,  this  law,  in  using  the  term,  was  necessarily  re- 
stricted to  the  well-established  meaning  of  that  term;  just  as 
our  own  law  in  using  the  term  "  Sunday"  necessarily  desig- 
nates the  first  day  of  the  week;  or  just  as  an  appointment  of 
^'  seventh  day"  for  any  purpose  b}^  the  society  of  "  Friends" 
could  not  possibly  intend  any  day  but  Saturday.  J.  N.  B. 
is  perfectly  right,  therefore,  when  he  agrees  with  me  that,  as 
certainly  as  man  can  know,  "  Saturday  is  the  Sabbath  enjoined 
on  the  Jews."  He  is  as  clearly  wrong  when  he  denies  that 
it  is  "enjoined  in  the  Decalogue." 

lie  attempts  to  uphold  the  distinction,  by  contending  that 


MR.  Taylor's  tuird  reply.        199 

The  day,  no  more  temporary  than  the  law. 

Saturday  was  "  fixed  by  a  temporary  statute/^  Then  clearly 
the  whole  law  was  ''  a  teniporary  statute,"  the  very  point  for 
which  I  am  battling.  If  "  the  seventh  day'^  observance  was 
intended  only  for  the  Jews,  it  follows,  as  I  maintained  before 
{p.  89),  that  '^  the  statute  itself  was  only  for  that  people.'^ 
J.  N".  B.  explains  that,  in  formerly  saying  the  statute  was  onli/ 
for  the  Jews  {p.  59),  he  meant  "  by  '  statute,'  what  God 
said  to  Moses  at  the  giving  of  the  manna.  {Exod.  xvi.  5,  15, 
16,  22 — 31.)  See  particularly  verse  26th,  where  the  statute 
of  designation  is  clear  as  the  sun }  and  that,  too,  long  he/ore^ 
the  giving  of  the  Decalogue."  (p.  164.)  This  26th  verse  is  as 
follows  :  "  Six  days  ye  shall  gather  it :  but  on  the  seventh  da?/, 
which  is  the  Sahhath,  in  it  there  shall  be  none."  Now  it  so 
happens  that  the  fourth  commandment  repeats  this  "  designa- 
tion" almost  verbatim.  "Six  days  shalt  thou  labor,  and  do 
all  thy  work  :  but  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sahhath  of  the  Lord 
thy  God;  in  it  thou  shalt  not  do  any  work."  {^Exod.  xx.  10.) 
If  the  former  of  these  texts  constitutes  a  "  statute  of  desig- 
nation" enjoining  Saturday  upon  the  Jews,  then  it  "  is  clear 
as  the  sun"  that  the  fourth  commandment  is  equally  "a  sta- 
tute of  designation"  enjoining  Saturday  upon  them.  Was  the 
designation  limited  to  them?  "'Then  most  certainly,  the 
statute  itself  was  only  for  that  people.'  So  says  W.  B.  T., 
and  I  am  most  happy  to  agree  with  him,"  adds  J.  N.  B.  (p. 

*  My  friend's  epithets  are  not  always  strictly  appropriate.  The 
circumstance  above  referred  to  as  having  been  "  long  before  the  giving 
of  the  Decalogue,"  took  place  not  quite  three  weeks  before  !  Two 
Sabbaths  only  intervened  between  the  first  imperfect  enactment  of  a 
Sabbath  law,  and  the  formal  establishment  of  it  in  the  fourth  com- 
mandment ;  so  that  the  two  occasions  may  very  properly  be  considered 
but  the  same  transaction.  The  Israelites  arrived  at  the  wilderness  of 
Sin  on  the  middle  of  one  month  [Exod.  xvi.  1),  and  at  Sinai  on  the 
next  month  [ib.  xix.  1) ;  three  days  after  which  (xix.  11,  16),  the 
Decalogue  was  orally  proclaimed  from  the  Mount  (xx.  1,  18).  Forty 
days  afterward,  the  Decalogue  had  been  written  on  the  tables  of  stone. 
{Dent.  ix.  9—11.) 


200  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

A  "  concession"  refuted.  The  same  day  uniformly  required. 

164.)  "  Wlij  should  I  not  be,  when  he  comes  over  completely 
to  my  ground  ?  Would  that  in  all  points  we  could  meet  as 
perfectly  as  in  this  V  If  our  agreement  is  real,  our  cause  for 
congratulation  is  mutual.  I  am  afraid,  however,  that  my 
friend's  sophisms  have  carried  him  somewhat  into  a  fog :  for  I 
notice  that,  in  afterwards  recurring  to  this  point  (p.  182),  he 
says  :  "  The  actual  designation  of  the  day  of  the  week  to  be 
observed  as  the  Sabbath  is  fixed  by  a  separate  temporary 
statute,  (as  I  have  fully  shown,  and  confirmed  hy  the  unwilling 
concession  of  W.  B.  T.  himself  ly^  J.  N.  B.  is  mistaken  : 
douhly  mistaken.  First,  he  unjustly  mistakes  in  using  the 
epithet  "unwilling,''  for  my  admissions  never  shall  be  so.  I 
assure  him  I  love  the  truth  too  well  to  pay  it  a  reluctant 
homage  ;  and  if  I  make  a  "  concession,"  it  shall  be  with  the 
exultation  due  to  the  discovery  of  a  new  and  unfamiliar  truth. 
But  my  friend  again  mistakes,  in  claiming  as  a  *'  concession'^ 
what  I  have  decisively  refuted!  The  designation  of  the  day 
of  the  week  to  be  observed  is  not  "fixed  by  a  separate  statute." 

In  my  very  first  Reply  {p.  21),  I  showed  that  "  in  every 
variety,  and  on  every  occasion  of  its  enunciation,  the  law  per- 
tinaciously requires  a  particular  day."  We  find  that  "  the 
actual  designation  of  the  day  of  the  week  to  be  observed  as 
the  Sabbath"  is  as  explicit  in  the  Decalogue  as  it  is  in  Exod. 
xvi.  26.  It  "  is  fixed  by  a  separate  temporary  statute,"  no 
otherwise  than  as  the  imperfect  Sabbath  law  at  Sin  was,  pre- 
paratory to  its  more  precise  and  impressive  re-enactment  at 
Sinai.  "  I  am  most  happy  to  agree  with  my  friend"  that 
the  seventh  day  Sabbath  was  established  "  by  a  temforary 
statute."  "  Why  should  I  not  be,  when  he  comes  over  com- 
pletely to  my  ground  ?" 

"It  follows,"  proceeds  J.  N.  B.,  "that  the  designation  of  the 
particular  day  of  the  week  from  a  given  point  of  reckoning 
is  no  part  of  the  Fourth  Commandment.     The  proportion  of 

our  days  to  be  kept  holy  to  the  Lord  is  alone  specified 

^  The  seventh  day'  of  the  Decalogue,  as  fur  as  it  is  defined  by 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        201 

No  •'  proportion  of  days"  specified  by  the  fourth  commandment. 

the  Decalogue  itself  [?],  is  the  seventh  in  succession — no 
other — no  less — no  more.  '  Every  word  of  God  is  pure. 
Add  thou  not  unto  His  words,  lest  lie  reprove  thee,  cand  thou 
be  found  a  liar/  is  a  warning  that  should  pierce  every  con- 
science to  the  quick. '^   (j;.  164.) 

My  friend  is  still  in  the  fog.  "The  proportion  of  our  days 
to  be  kept  holy"  is  not  specified  at  all  in  the  fourth  command- 
ment !  There  is  not  one  syllable  of  the  kind  in  it.*  This  is 
an  "  addition  unto  His  words  I"  The  command  is  not  to  keep 
a  seventh  '^proportion"  of  time;  but  to  ''remember  the 
Sabbath  day,  which  is  \j/om  ha-shihingi']  'day  the  seventh/  ^^ 
the  day  in  which  God  rested;  the  onli/  day  that  can  be  "the 
Sabbath  o/the  Lord  thy  God/'  as  the  Bible  tells  not  that  He 
ever  kept  any  other  "Sabbath."  (^Gen.  ii.  3;  JohnY.  17.) 
"  '  The  seventh  day'  of  the  Decalogue,  as  far  as  it  is  defined 
hy  the  Decalogue  itself,"  is  NOT  "  the  seventh  in  succession," 
nor  anything  else.  The  idea  is  a  chimera,  utterly  unworthy 
"  a  sober  logician."  "  As  far  as  it  is  defined  by  the  Decalogue 
itself,"  the  expression  yom  ha-shihingi  might  be  "  day  of  the 
new  moon,"  or  "  all-fools  day."  The  Biblical  interpreter 
should  know  that  "definitions"  are  derived  from  the  traditions 
of  language,  and  the  comparisons  of  application. 

J.  N.  B.  tells  us  that  "the  Decalogue  says  :  'Bemember 
the  Sahhath  day  to  keep  it  holy,'  not  'Remember  the  seventh 

*  "  The  proportion  of  days  to  be  kept  holy  to  the  Lord"  is  a  much 
larger  one  than  J.  N.  B.  has  been  pleased  to  assume.  If  he  will  turn 
to  Levit.  xxiii.  he  will  find  in  this  one  chapter  no  less  than  eight  diflereut 
"Sabbaths"  enjoined.  1.  The  weekly  Sabbath  {verse  3);  2.  The 
first  of  unleavened  bread  [v.  7)  ;  3.  The  seventh  of  imleavened  bread 
{v.  8) ;  4.  The  Pentecost  {y.  21) ;  5.  The  Sabbath  of  trumpets  {v.  24) ;  6. 
The  day  of  atonement  {v.  32) ;  7.  The  first  of  tabernacles  {v.  35)  ;  8.  The 
seventh  of  tabernacles  (y.  36).  In  no  single  instance,  however,  is  any 
"proportion"  of  time  "specified."  This  can  only  be  discovered  by 
computation.  The  requirement  of  the  law  is,  in  every  case,  a  well- 
determined  "  day," — no  other — no  less — no  more. 


202  ABROGATION  OP  THE  SABBATH. 

A  useless  distinction.  "  The  seventh  day,"  required  by  the  Law. 

day  to  keep  it  holy.'  What  the  Sabbath  day  is,  i.  e.,  how 
often  it  occurs,  and  what  is  its  order  of  succession,  is  intimated 
in  what  follows.  The  '  seventh  day'  is  not,  strictly  speaking, 
in  the  law  itself,  but  in  the  explanation  of  the  law."  (jo.  165.) 
Were  it  not  for  my  friend's  previous  declaration,  '^  Truth, 
and  not  mere  tilt,  is  my  object  in  this  Discussion''  {p.  162),  I 
should  have  thought  this  quibbling.  Will  J.  N.  B.  in  candor 
say  that  his  latter  form :  ^'  Remember  the  seventh  day  to  keep 
it  holy,"  would  be  one  jot  more  explicit,  unequivocal,  or 
authoritative, — one  jot  more  removed  beyond  the  reach  of 
subterfuge,  than  the  existing  form :  "  Remember  the  Sab- 
bath day  ...  but  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  ?"  If  he 
will  not  say  so,  his  distinction  is  disingenuous,  and  the  "  day" 
is  admitted  to  have  all  the  obligation  the  laiu  can  give  it ;  if 
he  will  say  so  (as  consistency  with  his  comment  requires),  I 
can  only  wonder  at  the  consorted  weakness  and  boldness  of 
expedient  to  which  ^^  wrong  theories  lead  intelligent  men.'^ 
With  far  more  plausibility  may  it  be  said  that  what  Pro- 
testants call  the  ^'  second"  commandment  is  not  properly  a 
^'law  itself,"  but  only  an  ^^explanation  of  the  law f'  for  in 
point  of  fact,  it  is  indeed  obviously  included  in  the  ^'  first" 
commandment.  Is  it,  therefore,  in  any  respect  snhordinate  ? 
The  notion  is  most  untenable.  The  extended  specifications  of 
a  statute  are  as  really  an  integral  part  "of  the  law  itself" 
as  its  first  general  provision.  They  demand  the  same  implicit 
obedience,  or  require  the  same  decisive  repeal.  J.  N.  B. 
appears  to  be  fully  aware  of  this,  for  even  while  contending 
that  the  seventh  day  "  is  not  the  text,  but  the  commentary  on 
the  text,  by  the  Divine  Lawgiver,"  he  admits  that  it  is  of 
"equal  antliority  with  it."  The  distinction  is  therefore  wholly 
irrelevant  to  the  point  under  discussion — the  reqidrement  of  the 
fourth  commandment.  "The  law  itself"  expressly  enacts  that 
"  day  the  seventh  is  the  Sabbath"  {Exod.  xx.  10)  ;  and  the 
intent  of  the  lawgiver  is  unmistakable  and  undisputed.  The 
subsequent  administration  of  the  law,  no  less  than  the  ante- 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.  203 

No  commutution  permitted.  The  Sabbath  law,  specific. 

cedent  suspension  of  the  manna,  places  it  beyond  question  that 
"  day  the  seventh"  indicated  Saturday,  and  no  other  day  ;  and 
so  rigidly  was  this  provision  insisted  on  that  even  in  the  case 
of  its  most  trivial  infraction,  no  commutation  of  '^  day''  was 
allowable,  no,  not  to  save  the  offender's  life.  (Mimb,  xv.  32 — 
36.)  "Remember  the  Sabbath  day,  to  keep  it  holy!"  It 
was  the  "day"  that  was  likely  to  be  forgotten,  not  "the  Sab- 
bath." 

In  my  friend's  former  Reply  (p.  47),  it  was  contended  that 
if  a  miracle  had  originally  determined  the  application  of  the 
law  in  regard  to  the  day,  a  subsequent  miracle  might  change 
its  application.  To  which  I  objected  (p.  89)  that  this  would 
be  to  allow  one  miraculous  interpretation  to  be  set  aside  by 
another  one.  In  rejoinder  to  this,  J.  N.  B.  says  :  "  He  knows, 
quite  as  well  as  I  do,  that  if  the  law  be  of  a  general  descrip- 
tion, it  is  equally  applicable  to  two  or  more  specific  cases." 
(p.  165.) 

"Your  if,"  says  Shakspeare,  "is  the  only  peacemaker: 
much  virtue  in  if."  The  fourth  commandment  is  not  "  gene- 
ral" in  description :  it  is  as  specific  as  language  can  make  it. 
It  designates  a  particular  day  by  its  proper  name,  and  hy  the 
only  name  it  had!  ^'Day  Ha-Shihingi  is  the  Sabbath!" 
Frequently  as  the  Sabbath  law  is  repeated,  in  no  single  in- 
stance does  it  describe  a  seventh  portion  of  time,  or  even  a 
"seventh  day"  as  its  object:  "day  the  seventh"  is  its  inexo- 
rable demand.  (See  Exod.  xvi.  26,  29,  xx.  10,  xxiii.  12,  xxxi. 
15,  xxxiv.  21,  XXXV.  2  ;  Lcvit.  xxiii.  3 ;  Deut.  v.  14.)  And 
if  a  miracle  has  confirmed  the  letter  of  the  precept,  by  mark- 
ing Saturday  the  last  day  of  the  week  as  that  "  day  the  se- 
venth" of  the  law — that  day  of  the  series  corresponding  to  the 
one  on  which  God  rested  from  all  his  work — no  other  miracle 
is  competent  to  prove  a  different  day  to  be  that  "day  the 
seventh."  A  miracle  may  repeal  a  law;  it  cannot  be  allowed 
to  contradict  another  miracle  ! 

"Willing  to  give  my  friend  the  benefit  of  the  utmost  latitude 


204  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

A  Miracle;  and  tlie  "  explanation."  No  change  in  the  computation. 

of  concession,  and  curious  to  see  to  wtat  his  assumptions  would 
conduct  him,  I  said,  "  Show  us  however  the  miracle  (fixing 
another  ^seventh  day'),  and  it  sufiiceth  us."  {p.  89.)  Says 
J.  N.  B.,  ^'  In  spite  of  this  sharp  irony,  that  miracle  may,  in 
due  time,  appear."  {p.  165.)  And  he  afterwards  resumes  {p. 
174),  "  I  propose  now  to  show  not  only  the  miracle,  but  the 
Divine  explanation  of  the  miracle.  I  bespeak  an  earnest  at- 
tention. Let  it  be  remembered,  then,  that  the  first  explicit  de- 
claration of  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  was  made  at  Csesa- 
rea  Philippi,  about  six  months  before  our  Saviour's  death. 
(Matt.  xvi.  13 — 20.)  .  .  .  '  After  six  days,'  says  Matthew 
(xvii.  1),  '  about  eight  days,'  says  Luke  (ix.  18,  28),  was  the 
Transfiguration.     .     .     .     But  that  miracle  was  connected  by 

some  secret  tie  with  the  miracle  of  the  Resurrection 

So  much  for  the  Miracle. [!]  Now  for  the  Divine  explanation 
of  the  Miracle,  which  fixes  the  first  day  of  the  week,  or  the 
day  of  Christ's  Resurrection,  as  the  Sabbath  of  the  Christian 
Dispensation."  (p.  175.)  This  "  Divine  explanation"  is  so  ab- 
struse as  to  require  the  remainder  of  this  PART  of  his  Reply 
(pp.  175 — 179)  for  its  development. 

And  what  have  we  in  all  this  inexplicable  ''  explanation," 
bearing  on  the  computation  of  the  week?  Not  the  first  sylla- 
ble !  "  The  Resurrection,"  says  J.  N.  B.,  ^' we  know  was,  on 
the  first  day  of  the  week  ;"  and  he  thinks  it  ''  highly  probable, 
to  say  the  least,  that  the  glorious  miracle  of  the  Transfigura- 
tion was  on  that  day.'^  (p.  174.)  Therefore — Sunday  is  "  day 
Ua-Sldhingif"  Is  it  so  ?  Have  we  any  intimation,  either 
in  the  New  Testament,  or  in  the  whole  range  of  history,  that 
Sunday  ever  became  the  seventh  day — that  it  was  ever  any- 
thing else  but  ^^  the  first  day  ?"  Not  a  hint !  How  then  does 
the  miracle  "  fix  another  '  seventh  day  V  "  My  friend  has 
completely  lost  his  reckoning. 

But  he  says  the  Divine  explanation  of  the  miracle  "  fixes 
the  first  day  of  the  week  as  the  Sabbath  of  the  Christian  Dis- 
pensation."    Here  is  a  s^2'^'*'^"^' -^     '^  Remember  the   Sabbath 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.  205 

The  "  seventh  day"  not  peculiar  to  the  Jews ;  but  universally  recognized. 

day  .  .  .  but  the  seventh  day  is  not  the  Sabbath  I"  J. 
N.  B.  undertook  to  show  that  "the  seventh  day"  had  been 
miraculously  changed,  and,  instead  of  doing  so,  endeavors  to 
make  it  appear  that  the  application  of  the  law  has  been  modi- 
fied.    "  A  new  phase  in  the  alogy,"  truly. 

Conscious  of  the  insecurity  of  his  footing,  he  says,  with 
some  anxiety :  "  This  question  has  nothing  to  do  with  any 
change  of  the  Decalogue.  This  I  have  proved  beyond  dispute. 
It  concerns  merely  the  Jeioish  mode  of  reckoning  the  iceek, 
fixed  by  the  miracle  of  the  Manna,  as  explained  by  Moses. 
{Exod.  xvi.  22 — 30.)  This  mode  of  reckoning  was  a  special 
statute  for  Israel."  (p.  174.)  The  hurry  of  my  friend's  forced 
march  has  here  driven  him  into  a  "  serious  blunder."  In  the 
first  place,  the  Jewish  mode  of  reckoning  the  week  was  not 
"fixed  by  the  miracle  of  the  Manna"  (see  Gen.  1.  10;  Job  ii. 
13  ;  Exod.  xvi.  5);  and  secondly,  if  it  had  been,  still  it  is 
"beyond  dispute,"  that  "this  mode  of  reckoning"  was  not 
peculiar  to  Israel ;  for  it  is  identical  with  ours.  It  never  has 
been  changed!  Saturday  is  still  "  the  seventh  day,"  as  cer- 
tainly as  it  was  in  the  Wilderness,  three  thousand  years  ago. 
The  very  miracle  of  the  Resurrection,  which  J.  N.  B.  adduced 
to  show  a  change  of  reckoning,  completely  overthrows  him : 
for  by  the  Record,  the  miracle  occurred  on  "  the  first  day  of 
the  week,"  and  on  that  same  "Jirst  day"  is  it  still  commemo- 
rated !  And  that  no  change  took  place  before  the  miracle,  he 
honestly  concedes  from  the  account  in  Luke  xxiii.  56.  "  Here 
is  proof,"  says  he,  "  that  iq?  to  that  time,  the  Saturday  Sabbath 
was  held  sacred."  (p.  183.) 

My  friend  has  the  misfortune  to  be  impaled  on  a  dilemma 
of  his  own  contrivance;  and,  I  fear,  will  have  to  ride  both 
horns,  for  the  moment  he  is  fairly  upon  one,  he  finds  it  neces- 
sary to  grasp  at  the  other  for  support.  Whether  it  is  the  day 
of  the  week,  or  the  day  of  the  law,  that  has  been  changed,  he 
is  not  right  clear.  There  is  obviously  considerable  delicacy 
reqiiired  in  the  statement  of  the  question^  since  his  theory  com- 
18 


206  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

No  change  made  in  the  week :  and  none  in  the  law. 

pels  him  to  be  extremely  sensitive  with  regard  to  any  modifica- 
tion of  the  Decalogue.  But,  however  tenderly  he  may  shift  his 
uneasy  seat,  the  ultimate  practical  point  to  be  proved  by  him 
is  that  the  observance  of  the  ^rs^  day  of  the  week  is  required 
by  the  fourth  commandment.  He  admits  that  it  is  as  certain 
as  human  knowledge  can  be,  ^'  that  Saturday/  is  the  Sabbath 
enjoined  on  the  Jews."  How  then  did  Sunday  ever  become 
obligatory  ?*  The  question  can  have  nothing  to  do  with  any 
change  of  the  weeh,  since,  *^  non  est,^'  there  has  been  none ;  and 
J.  N.  B.  thinks  he  has  ^'  proved  beyond  dispute"  that  it  '^  has 
nothing  to  do  with  any  change  of  the  Decalogue.'*  So,  upon 
the  whole,  it  appears  not  to  have  much  to  do  loith  anything  ! 
Still,  somehow  or  other,  and  somewhere  or  other,  J.  N.  B.  is 
pretty  sure  that  there  has  been  "  a  change."  "  Beyond  all 
dispute,"  says  he,  "  the  day  has  been  changed,  and  the  Divine 
blessing  has  since  rested  on  the  First  Day,  in  every  age,  onward 
to  our  own."  (p.  186.)  The  Scriptural  authority  for  this 
change  is  the  important  question  before  us. 

"  What  I  now  propose  to  show,"  says  J.  N.  B.,  "  is  that 
there  is  ample  evidence  in  the  Scriptures  that  Christ,  as  the 
sole  ^  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  day,'f  changed  the  day  of  its  ob- 
servance in  honor  of  His  own  Resurrection."  (p.  171.)  Ex- 
cellent ! — "  Highly  important — if  true  I" — "  Yea,  hath    God 

*  It  may  perhaps  be  encouraging  to  reflect  that  "the  'seventh 
day'  is  not,  strictly  speaking,  in  the  law  itself,  but  in  the  explanation 
of  the  law."  So  that,  by  adhering  strictly  to  "the  law  itself,"  and 
merely  anatomizing  exuberances  (such  as  the  words  "seventh" — 
"Egypt,"  &c.),  we  shall  still  be  enabled  to  retain  a  very  respectable 
skeleton  of  the  immortal  "  Decalogue." 

f  What  Jesus  did  as  "  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  day,"  is  recorded  in 

Matt.  xii.  1 8 ;  3Iark  ii.  23 — 28  ;  and  John  v.  17.     It  will  be  found 

to  be  something  very  diflferent  from  ''changing  the  day  of  its  observance  !'* 
Strangely  enough,  there  is  not  a  hint  there  afforded  my  friend  of  any 
such  "change!"  Whence  could  he  have  dreamed  so  "pure  a  fancy?" 
Ilis  appUcatic»  of  the  title  is  unmeaning  and  ridiculous. 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        207 

No  Scriptural  authority  for  a  transfer.        No  Sabbatarian  text  to  be  found. 

said?'' — At  last  then  we  may  hope  for  some  little  scrap  of  this 
'*  ample  evidence" — so  patiently  awaited,  so  anxiously  desired. 
"  One  fundamental  part  of  that  evidence  is  seen  (as  I  showed 
in  my  last  article)  in  the  nature  and  necessity  of  the  case — that 
is  to  say,  in  the  new  relations  established  by  the  work  of  Christ, 
and  confirmed  by  His  resurrection  from  the  dead  on  that  day." 
[p.  171.)  Alas  !  We  are  promised  '^bread :"  behold  "  a  stone." 
The  only  ^'fundamental"  part  of  the  evidence  is  "  chapter  and 
verse,"  my  friend !  Has  your  laborious  search  proved  un- 
availing ? — Why  not  candidly  avow  it  ?  Has  the  "  ample  evi- 
dence in  the  Scriptures"  been  adduced  ?  Where  is  it  to  be 
found  ?  The  thirsting  eye  trudges  through  barren  paragraphs, 
but  the  promised  well-spring  is  not  there.  Assumptions — 
"explanations" — rhetorical  episodes — these  instead  must  we 
accept,  and  not  "  too  curiously  consider."  I  have  challenged 
the  production  of  one  single  text  from  the  New  Testament  to 
countenance  Sabbatarianism ;  one  single  text,  but  half  as  ex- 
plicit as  Col.  ii.  16,  on  the  J./i<i-sabbatarian  side;  and  have 
pledged  myself  to  surrender  "  the  whole  argument  toithout  re- 
serve." (p.  40.)  My  appeal  remains  unanswered.  I  charge 
upon  my  friend,  that  the  text  does  not  exist,  upon  whose  naked 
strength,  he  himself  will  dare  to  rest  the  decision  of  any  07ie 
of  our  issues. 

"Look  calmly, now,"  says  he,  "at  the  case  before  us.  Here 
is  the  Law  of  the  Weekly  Sabbath  in  the  Decalogue, — moral,* 
positive,  clear,  benign,"  &c.  &c.  "  And  yet  you  demand  posi- 
tive proof  of  its  re-enactment  by  Christ  in  explicit  terms,  or  of 
an  equally  explicit  account  of  its  transfer  to  the  first  day,  from 
the  seventh  of  the  Jewish  calendar  week.  [Exactly.  You 
know  '  there  is  ample  evidence  in  the  Scriptures,'  if  ice  could 
hut  find  it."]    Demands  at  once  preposterous  and  presumptuous ! 

*  "  A  weekly  Sabbath  ...  is  not  of  itself  obvious !"  (J.  N.  B. /?.  15.) 
"  The  law  of  observing  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  is  not  of  a  moral 
nature."     Dr.  Gill.   [Body  of  Divinity,  vol.  iii.  b.  iii.  eh.  8.) 


208  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

"  A  kind  of  evidence  which  Infinite  Wisdom  does  not  see  fit  to  give." 

By  what  right  do  you  thus  dictate  to  God  [!]  the  mode  of  his 
revelation r'    {p.  172.) 

However  closely  pressed  my  friend  may  feel  himself,  by  the 
demand,  he  should  still  "  look  calmly  at  the  case/'  and  by  all 
means  avoid  dogmatism.  By  exercising  a  cool  discrimination, 
he  will  discover  that  the  "dictation'^  reaches  at  present  no 
higher  than  himself 3  and,  "by  the  right''  of  controversial 
honesty,  I  dictate  thus  :  Dare  not  to  tell  us,  if  you  value  truth, 
that  a  Scriptural  "mode  of  revelation"  has  transferred  the 
Sabbath,  unless  you  are  prepared  to  furnish  the  evidence  of 
that  "  mode !"  However  "  presumptuous"  the  demand,  I  shall 
not  easily  be  frowned  from  it.  It  is  no  doubt  highly  "prepos- 
terous" to  drive  J.  N.  B.  into  so  narrow  a  corner,  but  a  frank 
acknowledgment  of  error  affords  an  honorable  escape,  and  pity 
would  be  weakness. 

In  a  preceding  passage  (p.  170),  he  remarks,  with  equal  justice 
and  moderation,  that  "  a  lesson  of  deep  import,"  learned  from 
the  calm  answers  and  demeanor  of  Jesus,  is,  that  "  we  may  be 
demanding  on  some  points  a  kind  or  degree  of  evidence  which 
Infinite  Wisdom  does  not  see  fit  to  give."  I  thank  him  for  so 
fair  a  statement.  My  sole  business,  under  the  "  First  Propo- 
sition," is  to  show  that  Scriptural  authority  for  a  modification 
of  the  Sabbath  law  is  "  a  hind  or  degree  of  evidence  which  In- 
finite Wisdom  has  not  seen  fit  to  give."  And  the  satisfactory 
reason  why  no  modification  of  the  law  has  been  thus  revealed 
is,  because  the  Scriptural  authority  for  its  total  abrogation  is 
"  ample,"  unqualified,  decisive.*     Though  we  search  the  New 

*  "  The  Jewish  Sabbath  being  abrogated,  the  Christian  liberty,  like 
the  sun  after  the  dispersion  of  the  clouds,  appeared  in  its  full  splendor, 
and  then  the  division  of  days  ceased,  and  one  day  was  not  more  holy 
than  another,  as  St.  Paul  disputes  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  (and 
from  him  St.  Jerome,  in  loco.) ;  and  when  St.  Paul  reproved  the  Corin- 
thians for  going  to  law  before  unbelievers  who  kept  their  court-days 
upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,  he  would  not  have  omitted  to  reprove 
them  by  so  great  and  weighty  a  circumstance  as  the  profaning  '  the 


MR.  TAYLOR^  S  THIRD  REPLY.  209 

The  word  "  Sabbath"  Tital,  because  the  only  appropriate  designation. 

Testament  with  microscopic  diligence,  we  can  find  no  syllable 
to  whisper  '^a  transfer  of  the  day."  Granting  to  J.  N.  B.  the 
full  benefit  of  his  own  forced  constructions  of  all  the  passages 
of  Scripture  he  has  been  able  to  collect,  he  is  just  as  far  from 
the  establishment  of  his  assumption — a  change  in  the  applica- 
tion of  the  fourth  commandment — as  ever.  The  vital  word 
''  Sabbath"  (as  I  before  remarked, — p.  93),  unfortunately, 
^Miad  to  be  omitted  from  all  his  decisive  ^  facts,'  built  on 
'chapter  and  verse  !'  " 

But,  replies  J.  N.  B.  {p.  190)  :  "  Is  there  anything  '  vital' 
in  the  ivord  '  Sabbath,'  that  its  absence  should  decide  the  ques- 
tion ?  True  vitality  belongs  to  things,  not  ivords.  If  we  find 
the  thinj — the  weekly  day  of  religious  rest  and  convocation, 
established  by  Divine  Authority  in  the  Christian  Church  on 
'  the  first  day  of  the  week,'  is  it  not  the  merest  verbal  trifling 
to  dispute  about  the  name?  If  my  friend  prefers,  with  the 
Apostle,  to  call  it  '  the  Lord's  day,'  and  as  such  admits  its  obli- 
gation, I  will  be  the  last  man  to  quarrel  with  him." 

I  answer,  "words"  are  "  vital,"  as  the  exponents  of  "things." 
Pre-eminently  "vital"  are  they  in  theological  discussion;  and 
my  friend  well  knows  that  long  and  bitter  battles  have  been 
waged  on  the  orthodoxy  of  a  Greek  diphthong.  The  word 
"Sabbath"  is  vital  here,  as  being  the  appropriate,  and  the  only 
appropriate,  designation  of  the  subject  in  dispute.  If  J.  N.  B.  can 
"find  the  thiuf//'  why  should  he  hesitate  to  call  it  by  its  proper 
name  ?  If,  in  a  single  text  of  those  he  has  presented,  a  day  of 
worldly  rest  is  inculcated,  under  lohatever  "name" — a  day  in 
which  it  is  commanded  "  thou  shalt  not  do  any  work" — how 
happens  it  that  in  summing  up  his  "four  distinct /acifs,"  with 
all  the  latitude  of  liberal  paraphrase  and  "forced  construction," 
he  could  not  once  lug  in  "  the  vital  word"  on  which  our  con- 
Lord's  day,'  in  case  it  had  been  then  a  holy  day,  either  of  divine  or 
apostolical  institution."  Jeremy  Taylor.  [Duct.  Dub.  b.  ii.  ch.  11. 
rule  6,  54.) 

18* 


210  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  "  Lord's  day"  not  here  in  controversy. 

troversy  turns  ?  If  the  true  reason  is,  because  he  dared  not, 
the  charge  of  verbal  trifling  recoils  on  him  who,  driven  from 
all  his  defences,  seeks  refuge  in  artifice,  and  endeavors  to  veil 
defeat  beneath  a  juggle  of  ivords. 

"  If  I  prefer  to  call  it  ^  the  Lord's  day,'  '^  my  friend  will  not 
^'  quarrel  with  me  !"  Unequalled  complaisance  !  If  I  should 
feel  disposed  to  change  the  issue,  he  will  not  object : — if  I  sur- 
render my  castle,  I  am  welcome  to  his  wigwam  !  I  "  prefer'^ 
to  remind  J.  N.  B.,  once  more,  that  our  present  subject  of  dis- 
cussion is  "  the  Scriptural  authority  of  the  Sabbath;"  in  other 
words,  the  obligation  of  the  fourth  commandment.  When  this 
is  disposed  of,  I  will  cheerfully  investigate  with  him  whatever 
other  subject  he  may  propose. 

W.  B.  T. 


PART  II. 

INTIMATIONS  OP  A  TRANSFER  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

"  Seek  ye  out  of  the  book  of  the  Lord,  and  read." — Isaiah  xxxiv.  16. 

"And  he  that  hath  my  word,  let  him  speak  my  word  faithfully. 
What  is  the  chaff  to  the  wheat?  saith  the  Lord." — Jeremiah  xxiii.  28. 

"For  my  people  have  committed  two  evils ;  they  have  forsaken — the 
fountain  of  living  waters,  and  hewed  them  out  cisterns,  broken  cisterns, 
that  can  hold  no  water," — Jeremiah  ii.  13. 

"  To  the  Law,  and  to  the  testimony :  if  they  speak  not  according  to 
this  word,  it  is  because  there  is  no  light  in  them." — Isaiah  viii.  20. 

*'  There  are  many  devices  in  a  man's  heart;  nevertheless  the  coun- 
sel of  the  Lord, — that  shall  stand," — Proverbs  xix.  21. 

"Every  plant  which  my  heavenly  Father  hath  not  planted,  shall  be 
rooted  up !" — Matthew  xv.  13. 


Although  the  Bible  admittedly  contains  no  "positive 
proof"  of  any  Christian  enactment  of  the  Sabbath,  nor  any 
"  explicit  account  of  its  transfer  to  the  first  day  from  the  se- 
venth," yet  the  persistency  of  my  friend's  reliance  on  supposed 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        211 

Psalms  cxviii. — No  relation  whateyer  to  the  fourth  commandment. 

Scriptural  intimations  of  some  such  change  requires  that  I 
should  more  fully  consider  his  texts  and  his  inferences.  I 
shall  therefore  review  the  passages  adduced — seriatim;  glean- 
ing, with  the  patient  care  due  to  the  importance  of  the  subject, 
whatever  has  been  urged  in  their  support,  solicitous  that  no 
straw,  or  semblance  of  a  straw,  escape  the  garner.  These  refer- 
ences, I  believe,  amount  to  twelve,  and  are  all  included  in  part 
I.  of  his  former  Reply  {pp.  51,  52). 

I.   Intimations  from  PropJiecy. 

1.  The  first  text  urged  to  indicate  a  change  of  day  is  from 
Psahns  cxviii.  24 :  "  This  is  the  day  which  the  Lord  hath  made; 
we  will  rejoice  and  be  glad  in  it."  Upon  which  J.  N.  B.  re- 
marks (p.  177) :  ''  How  'made?'  This  word  can  have  no  dis- 
tinct meaning,  unless  it  signifies  here  '  made  sacred ;'  and  to 
agree  with  the  foregoing  verse,  it  must  mean  '  made  sacred  to 
Christ,'  in  honor  of  his  exaltation  as  the  'head  of  the  corner.' 
And  that  this  sacredness  is  to  be  recognized  by  the  Church  is 
clear  from  the  following  words :  '  We  will  rejoice  and  be  glad 
in  it.'"  Ergo,  ''Thou  shalt  not  do  any  work"  on  Sunday  :  ergo, 
the  Jewish  Sabbath  has  been  "  transferred."  Quite  an  impos- 
ing hypothetical  sorites.  If  "  macW  signifies  here  "  made 
sacred,''  and  if  this  signifies  "made  sacred  to  Christ,"  and  if 
this  signifies  "made  sacred  from  labor,"  why  then  it  is  not  im- 
possible that  a  "Sabbath"  may  here  be  intended.  And,  in  the 
second  place, if  the  word  "day"  signifies  here  a  time  of  weekly 
recurrence,  and  if  that  time  is  Sunday,  and  if  to  "  be  glad  in 
it"  means  to  worship)  on  it,  and  if  to  worship  on  it  means  to 
"rest"  on  it,  why  then  perhaps  Sunday  is  a  "  Sabbath." 

To  blow  upon  this  paper  building  would  be  a  superfluous 
effort  of  breath ;  and  were  I  to  assist  my  friend  in  supporting 
his  tottering  pile,  it  would  really  benefit  him  nothing.  "  The 
thing"  required,  the  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  commandment,  is 
just  as  foreign  to  the  text  as  is  its  "name."  But  it  is  too  clear 
for  illustration,  that  "the  day"  here  spoken  of  by  the  Psalmist, 


212  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

No  reference  made  to  the  wcel;  more  than  to  the  year. 

is  distinguished  as  the  glorious  dawning,  ''  not  of  a  loeek,  but 
of  a  dispensatwn."*  It  has  no  more  relation  to  an  hebdomadal 
period,  than  it  has  to  a  montlili/,  a  yearly,  or  a  centennial  one. 
J.  N.  B.  informs  us  that  the  import  of  the  word  ^^  must  he  its 
literal  meaning,  unless  sufficient  reasons  can  be  given  to  show 
the  contrary.  The  literal  meaning  of  the  word  in  question  is, 
a  period  of  twenty-four  hours."  (p.  177.)  This  absolutely 
excludes  the  hypothesis  of  a  weekly  return !  If  the  "  Messiah's 
exaltation"  took  place  on  a  "  literal  day,^'  it  certainly  did  not 
again  take  place  on  that  day  week,  any  more  than  it  did  on 
that  day  year  If 

*  Dr.  Gill,  the  commentator,  after  stating  the  various  applications 
of  the  word  "  day"  here,  to  *' Resurrection-day,"  "  Lord's  day,"  &c., 
thinks  it  is  "rather  the  whole  Gospel  dispensation,  made  a  bright  day 
by  the  sun  of  righteousness,  and  which  is  the  now  present  day  of  sal- 
vation."    (^Comme7itary,  in  loco.) 

Prof.  J.  A.  Alexander,  of  Princeton,  remarks  upon  the  passage, 
**By  the  'day'  we  are  here  to  understand  the  happier  times  which 
Israel,  through  God's  grace,  was  permitted  to  enjoy.  This  day  he  is 
said,  as  the  author  of  this  blessed  revolution,  to  have  made — created. 
Some  understand  by  day  the  festival  or  celebration  at  which  the  psalm 
was  intended  to  be  sung.  The  day,  in  this  sense,  God  is  said  to  have 
made  or  instituted,  not  so  much  by  positive  appointment  as  by  having 
providentially  aflForded  the  occasion  for  it.  In  a  still  higher  sense,  the 
words  may  be  applied  to  the  new  dispensation,  as  a  glorious  change  in 
the  condition  of  the  church,  compared  with  which  the  restoration  from 
captivity  was  nothing,  except  as  a  preliminary  to  it,  and  a  preparation 
for  it.  There  is  no  allusion  to  the  weekly  Sabbath,  except  so  far  as  it  was 
meant  to  be  a  type  of  the  rest  of  the  church  from  the  heavy  burdens  of 
the  old  dispensation."    {^The  Psalms  translated  and  ezplabied: — in  loco.) 

f  Bishop  HoRNE,  indeed,  commenting  on  this  text,  observes :  "Easter 
day  is  in  a  peculiar  manner  consecrated  to  Him  who  by  his  resurrection 
triumphed  over  death  and  hell.  On  that  day,  through  faith,  we  triumph 
with  him;  we  rejoice  and  are  glad  in  his  salvation."  (^Commentary  on 
Psalms,  in  loco.)  I  hope  this  application  will  not  frighten  my  friend 
out  of  consistency ;  for  the  passage  is  really  just  as  appropriate  to  the 
annual  as  to  the  hebdomadal  festival.  "  This  is  the  day  which  the  Lord 
hath  made." 


213 

Isaiah  Ixv. — Modified.    The  text  ^n<i-sabbatarian ;  and  prospective. 

2.  The  second  text  is  from  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  (Ixv.  17, 
&c.)  :  "  For  behold  I  create  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth;  and 
the  former  shall  not  he  remembered,  nor  come  into  mind.  But 
be  ye  glad,  and  rejoice  forever  in  that  which  I  create  :  for  be- 
hold I  create  Jerusalem  a  rejoicing,  and  her  people  a  joy ; 
and  I  will  rejoice  in  Jerusalem,  and  joy  in  my  people:  and 
the  voice  of  weeping  shall  be  no  more  heard  in  her,  nor  the 
voice  of  crying.  .  .  .  The  wolf  and  the  lamb  shall  feed  to- 
gether, and  the  lion  shall  eat  straw  like  the  bullock."  From 
all  which  it  ought  to  be  apparent  to  any  one  not  blinded  by 
"  an  evil  heart  of  unbelief,'^  that  the  Sabbath  law  has  been 
changed,  and  that  now  the  first  day  "  is  the  Sabbath  of  the 
Lord  thy  God;  in  it  thou  shalt  not  do  any  work.'^  Unfortu- 
nately, J.  N.  B.  is  not — himself  altogether  satisfied  with  the 
passage,  and  wishes  to  modify  it.  ^^  Not  absolutely ^  indeed  (as 
"W.  B.  T.  perversely  understands  me),  but  comparatively j  will 
the  wonders  of  the  original  creation  ^  cease  to  be  remembered 
and  come  into  mind.'  '^  (p.  178.)  How  "perverse'^  in  W. 
B.  T.  to  be  so  literal!  And  how  provoking  that  Isaiah  forgot 
so  trivial  a  qualification  as  the  word  "  comparatively  !"  But, 
alas  !  the  passage  contains  (as  I  have  already  noticed, — p.  92)  a 
clear  annihilation  of  the  fourth  commandment.  ''  Remember 
not  the  Sabbath-day"  of  creation  !  No  periodic  intervals  shall 
measure  your  rejoicings,*  Even  supposing,  as  before,  I  grant 
to  the  uttermost  my  friend's  own  reading,  where  is  ''  the 
thing — the  vital  thing .?"  It  cannot  be  found!  It  is  from  here 
*^  As  far  removed,  as  from  the  centre  thrice  to  th'  utmost  pole  \" 
Strong  and  unequivocal,  however,  as  is  the  Anti-sabbatarianism 
of  this  passage,  I  decline  employing  it  in  evidence.  My  cause 
is  too  strong  to  accept  incompetent  support.     J.  N.  B.  knows 

*  As  Grotius  well  observes  of  the  strong  and  spiritual  Christian : 
*'  He  esteems  every  day  alike  holy,  serving  God  from  new  moon  to  new 
moon,  and  from  Sabbath  to  Sabbath,  according  to  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah." 
{Annotations  on  N.  Test,  in  Rom.  xiv.  5.) 


214  ABROGATION  OP  THE  SABBATH. 

John  XX.     Matthew  xxviii.    Luke  xxiv.    "  The  thing" — wanting. 

as  well  as  I  do  that  this  grand  prophecy  has  never  been  ful- 
filled.* It  can  therefore  have  no  kind  of  application  to  the 
case  before  us. 

II.  Intimations  from  the  example  of  Jesus. 

3.  The  third  text  of  my  friend  brings  us  to  the  legitimate 
field  of  inquiry — the  New  Testament.  It  is  John  xx.  16 : 
"  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Mary.  She  turned  herself,  and  saith 
unto  him,  Rabboni,  which  is  to  say,  Master.^^  Whence  we 
may  conjecture  that  the  day  on  which  this  was  said  was  pro- 
bably a  "  Sabbath,"  and  consequently  that  the  law  was  here 
changed.  "  The  thing^'  is  not  here  ! — nor  the  ghost  of  the 
''  thing." 

4.  The  fourth  text  is  Matthew  xxviii.  9 — 11 :  "  And  as  they 
went  to  tell  his  disciples,  behold  Jesus  met  them,  saying,  All 
hail.  And  they  came  and  held  him  by  the  feet,  and  wor- 
shipped him.  Then  said  Jesus  unto  them.  Be  not  afraid  :  go 
tell  my  brethren  that  they  go  into  Galilee,  and  there  shall  they 
see  me.  Now  when  they  were  going,  behold  some  of  the  watch 
came  into  the  city,  and  showed  unto  the  chief  priests  all  the 
things  that  were  done."     "  The  thinf  is  not  here  ! 

5.  The  fifth  text  is  Luhe  xxiv.  80 — 40 :  "And  it  came  to 
pass,  as  he  sat  at  meat  with  them,  he  took  bread  and  blessed  it 
and  brake,  and  gave  to  them.  And  their  eyes  were  opened,  and 
they  knew  him ;  and  he  vanished  out  of  their  sight,"  &c.  &c. 

*  LowTH  remarks  concerning  it:  "  The  conversion  of  the  Jews  will 
be  in  the  last  times  of  this  world:  and  then  will  follow  the  'new  heavens 
and  earth,'  which  are  to  commence  after  the  dissolution  of  this  world." 
(Com.  in  loco.) 

Clakke  says  of  it:  "  Some  Jews  and  some  Christians  understand  it 
literally.  Some  refer  it  to  what  they  call  the  Millennium ;  others,  to  a 
glorious  state  of  religion ;  others,  to  the  re-creation  of  the  earth  after 
it  shall  have  been  destroyed  by  fire.  I  think  it  refers  to  the  full  con- 
version of  the  Jews  ultimately,  and  primarily  to  the  deliverance  from 
the  Babylonish  captivity."     [Com.  in  loco.) 


215 

The  disciples  unconscious  of  a  transfer.  An  auxiliary  testimony. 

Well,  ^'the  thing^*  is  not  liere  !  J.  N.  B.  appears  to  be  some- 
what aware  of  this,  for,  in  adverting  to  the  preceding  occur- 
rences of  this  same  day,  he  acknowledges  that  up  to  this  time 
the  disciples  were  evidently  unconscious  of  any  modification  of 
the  fourth  commandment ;  and  he  very  candidly  thinks  it  ^'no 
wonder  that  they  did  not  yet  understand  the  change  of  the  Sab- 
bath day.*  Hence,  two  of  them  ^  that  same  day'  walked  out 
to  Emmaus  (about  eight  miles  west  of  Jerusalem),  and  were 
joined  by  Jesus. — Luhe  xxiv.  13 — 32. '^     {p.  184.) 

An  important  link  in  my  friend's  '^  chain"  of  evidence  has 
here  been  unfortunately  dropped,  perhaps  through  the  careless- 
ness of  the  early  transcribers  of  the  Gospels.  The  following 
passage  (omitted  by  the  Council  of  Nice)  finds  an  appropriate 
connection  in  the  last  chapter  of  Luke,  immediately  after  the 
29th  verse  : — 

["  30  And  when  they  were  entered  into  the  house,  Jesus 
continued  talking  and  expounding  the  Scriptures  unto  them. 
31  And  before  the  lights  were  brought,  for  it  was  not  yet 
dark,  he  said  unto  them.  Wist  ye  not  that  it  behooved  Christ 
to  rise  again  from  the  dead  on  the  third  day  ?  32  And  be- 
hold this  day  hath  been  the  first  day  of  the  week :  henceforth 
therefore  it  shall  be  a  Sabbath, unto  you;  for  the  Son  of  man 
is  Lord  even  of  the  Sabbath  day.  33  Therefore  ye  shall  keep 
the  Sabbath,  to  observe  the  Sabbath,  throughout  your  genera- 
tions. It  shall  be  a  sign  unto  you  forever.  34  From  the 
second  day  of  the  week,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  seventh  day, 
may  ye  labor,  and  do  all  your  work  :  but  the  first  day  is 
the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  your  God  ]  for  it  is  written,  He  rested 
on  the  seventh  day  from  all  his  work  which  he  had  made  j 
wherefore  the  Lord  hath  blessed  the  first  day  and  hath  hal- 
lowed it.  35  Behold  now  ye  have  walked  hither  from  Jeru- 
salem these  threescore  furlongs.  This  ought  ye  not  to  have 
done.  36  But  I  wot  that  through  ignorance  ye  did  it,  not 
having  understanding  to  discern  the  day  which  the  Lord  hath 
made :  go  henceforth,  and  sin  no  more.  37  Verily  I  say  unto 
you,  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  hereafter  ye  shall  not  do  any 

*  A  "wonder,"  indeed,  would  it  have  been,  if  they  Aac/ understood  it  I 


216  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

A  valuable  connecting  link.  John  xx. — No  hint  of  a  Sabbath. 

work.  Tarry  here,  therefore,  and  rest  until  the  day  be  fully 
past,  and  then  go  straightway  and  tell  the  disciples  what  ye 
have  heard,  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  ye 
have  been  commanded.  38  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  he 
had  made  an  end  of  speaking,  the  two  disciples  marvelled 
greatly  within  themselves  if  this  were  indeed  Jesus  who  was 
risen  from  the  dead ;  for  he  spake  as  one  having  authority  : 
howbeit  they  knew  not  his  voice.  39  Then  the  disciple  whose 
name  was  Cleopas  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Lo,  now  speak- 
est  thou  plainly,  and  speakest  no  parable ;  now  we  understand 
that  of  a  surety  the  first  day  of  the  week  is  the  holy  Sabbath 
of  rest.'']     (^MS.  Interpolatum,  cap.  xxiv.) 

^^  That  they  did  then  understand,"  says  my  friend,  ^^  that 
the^rs^  day  of  the  iveeh  was  henceforth  to  be  the  Lord's  day, 
and  to  be  observed  by  Christians  as  such,  is  evident  from  the 
fact  next  recorded. — John  xx.  26 — 29."  (p.  184.)  As  a  con- 
necting  link,  the  value  of  this  interesting  though  uncanonical 
fragment  cannot  be  too  highly  appreciated.  It  furnishes  at 
once  the  explicit  confirmation  of  a  hypothetical  precept,  and 
the  triumphant  refutation  of  ^^  ungodly  and  profane"  Anti- 
sabbatarianism.  Striking  as  is  the  fortunate  coincidence  of 
discovery  which  has  rewarded  our  respective  researches,  I  can- 
not for  a  moment  contest  with  J.  N.   B.  the  merit  of  priority. 

6.  The  sixth  text  is  John  xx.  19,  20  :  "  Then  the  same 
day  at  evening,  being  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  the  doors 
were  shut  where  the  disciples  were  assembled,  for  fear  of  the 
Jews,  came  Jesus  and  stood  in  the  midst,  and  saith  unto  them, 
Peace  be  unto  you.  And  when  he  had  so  said,  he  showed 
unto  them  his  hands  and  his  side.  Then  were  the  disciples 
glad  when  they  saw  the  Lord."  Therefore,  argues  my  friend, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  do  any  work"  on  the  first  day ;  and  as  a 
necessary  inference  "  the  seventh  day"  is  not  the  Sabbath  ! 

Can  any  one  not  blessed  with  ''  second-sight,"  or  with  the 
faculty  of  seeing  in  the  dark,  discover  a  cobweb  of  connection 
between  this  incident,  and  any  requirement  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment ?    "Can  any  one  in  his  sober  senses"  seriously  main- 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        217 

No  connection  whaterer  between  the  Resurrection,  and  the  Sabbath. 

tain  such  a  connection  ?  It  seems  incredible.  The  whole 
narrative  contains  neither  precept  nor  example  for  any  "  observ- 
ance'' whatever  !  "  The  thing"  is  not  here  I  And  yet  J.  N. 
B.  thinks  "  My  friend  W.  B.  T.  makes  very  light  of  this 
branch  of  the  evidence.  The  texts  referred  to  by  me  are  dis- 
posed of  '  summarily'  indeed  !"  He  adds :  ''  I  am  not  surprised 
at  this.  It  is  clear  that  he  has  not  studied  the  facts  closely, 
so  as  to  perceive  their  force  as  connected  linls  in  a  chain  of 
circumstantial  evidence — practically  and  irresistibly  confirming 
the  fact  of  such  a  change,  as  I  have  proved  by  other  evidence 
[!]  already."  {p.  183.)  That  is,  I  presume,  "  from  the  nature 
of  the  case  V 

And  what  is  the  force  of  these  texts  '^  as  connected  links  ?" 
Why,  that  the  fii'st  day  of  the  week  was  Resurrection-day,  in 
consequence  of  which  Jesus  paid  repeated  visits  to  his  disciples 
on  "  the  same  day."  And  will  it  be  asserted  that  this  has 
anything  to  do  with  the  duty  either  of  working  or  of  resting 
from  work  ?  Will  my  friend  confirm  the  charge  of  "  verbal 
trifling"  by  venturing  to  intimate  that  "  Besurrection-day"  is 
but  another  name  for  "  Sabbath-day  ?"  I  fear  he  cannot  escape 
it.  The  miracle,  he  tells  us  (jp.  175),  "  fixes  the  first  day  of 
the  week — as  the  Sahhath  of  the  Christian  Dispensation,"  be- 
cause, ''1.  It  is  the  Besurrectiou  of  *  the  Lord  of  the  Sah- 
hath: "  ''2.  It  is  the  Resurrection  of  the  Son  of  God." 
"3.  It  is  the  Resurrection  of  the  Lord  of  Angels."  '^4,  It 
is  the  Resurrection  of  the  Head  of  the  Church."  Well,  and 
what  possible  connection  is  there  between  the  resurrection  of 
all  these  characters,  and  the  fourth  commandment?*     Does 

*  The  following  remarkable  assertion  occurs  in  pakt  i.  of  my 
friend's  Reply  [p.  167) :  "When  the  Messiah  came  out  of  that  nation, 
to  complete  the  great  work  of  human  redemption  by  his  own  death  and 
resurrection,  a  still  higher  dignity  was  conferred  upon  the  weekly 
Sahhath  by  connecting  it  with  the  memory  of  that  grand  event!" 

Can  my  friend's  utmost  stretch  of  ingenuity  discover  in  what  way 
"  the  weekly  Sabbath"  is  connected  with  either  the  "death  or  the 
19 


218  ABROGATION  Or  THE  SABBATH. 

A  logical  conclusion  !  The  true  bearing  of  the  text — overlooked. 

the  statute  say  anything  about  a  "  resurrection  ?"  Does  the 
Bible  anywhere — from  Genesis  to  Revelation — give  us  a  hint 
of  any  relation  between  the  two  ?  No  whisper  of  it !  We  do 
read  indeed  that  the  Sabbath  law  was  connected  with  the 
Crucifixion  (see  Col.  ii.  14,  16) ; — but  with  the  Resurrection 
— NEVER  !  "  It  remains,  therefore,  I  think,'^  says  J.  N.  B. 
(p.  178),  ^'  a  sound  conclusion  from  the  premises,  that  the  first 
day  of  the  week  is  appointed  the  Sahhatli  of  the  Christian 
Dispensation  !"      Quod  erat  demonstrandum. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  granting  the  monstrous  absurdity 
that  the  appearance  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples  constituted  the 
day,  ipso  facto,  a  "  Sabbath,"  it  appears  to  have  been  entirely 
overlooked  by  J.  N.  B.  that  his  present  text,  so  far  from  sup- 
porting the  claim  of  Sunday  to  that  character,  establishes 
Monday  as  a  "  day  of  rest."  It  is  familiar  to  every  theolo- 
gical tyro,  and  will  be  questioned  by  no  one,  that  the  "  day" 
of  the  Bible,  and  of  the  Hebrews,  began  with  the  evening. 
(Exod.  xii.  18  ;  Levit.  xxiii.  32 ;  Neh.  xiii.  19,  &c. ;  Mark  xv. 
42.)  The  setting  of  the  sun  formed  the  division  point  between 
the  termination  of  one  day,  and  the  introduction  of  the  next. 
(^Deut.  xvi.  6.)     The  "  first  day"  of  the  week  commenced  on 

resurrection  ?"  Chapter  and  verse  for  that !  Can  his  utmost  diligence 
of  scrutiny  find  it  out?  He  knows — fully  and  indubitably  knoics — 
that  neither  of  these  "  grand  events"  occurred  on  "  the  weekly  Sab- 
bath:" how  then  can  either  of  them  be  "  connected"  v^ith  it  "i  What 
means  this  "  turning  aside  unto  vain  jangling  ?"  The  Sabbath  is  memo- 
rable only  for  the  rest  of  Jesus  in  the  grave !  and  knowing,  as  J.  N.  B. 
does,  that  during  "that  whole  day"  he  "  lay  in  his  lowest  humiliation 
under  the  power  of  death"  {p.  168),  while  his  mourning  disciples 
•'  rested  the  Sabbath-da.7/  according  to  the  commandment,"  how  pre- 
sumes he  to  tell  us  that  "  a  still  higher  dignity  was  conferred  upon  the 
weekly  Sabbath"  by  the  consummation  of  "the  great  work  of  human 
redemption?"  In  what  Testament  did  he  read  it  ?  "  Yea,  hath  God 
said  ?"  Is  it  wheat,  or  is  it  chaff? — Search  the  Scriptures !  " Every 
plant  which  the  heavenly  Father  hath  not  planted,  shall  be  rooted 
up!" 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        219 

The  second  day  of  the  week  indicated ;  and  not  the  first  day. 

Saturday  evening  at  sunset  {Mark  i.  32 ;  Luke  iv.  40),  and 
terminated  at  the  sunset  of  Sunday,  when  the  "  second  day'' 
commenced.  The  '^evening"  spoken  of  in  JoJin  xx.  19  was 
therefore  the  beginning  of  the  second  day.  And  even  allow- 
ing my  friend  the  latitude  of  construction,  that  would  under- 
stand the  word  "  evening"  as  not  being  here  used  in  its  strictest 
sense,  but  as  merely  expressing  that  ^4t  was  toward  even- 
ing, and  the  day  was  far  spent"  {Luke  xxiv.  29),  when  the 
disciples  came  together,  still  the  important  fact  remains  incon- 
trovertible, that  the  great  incident  of  the  assembly  took  place 
some  time  after  dark.*  It  was  already  late  in  the  afternoon, 
when  Jesus  went  in  with  the  two  disciples  at  Emmaus  "  to 
tarri/  with  them  :" — with  them  he  there  partook  his  evening 
meal  {Luke  xxiv.  29 — 31)  ;  after  which  the  two  disciples  re- 
turned to  Jerusalem  (a  tico  Jiours^  journey),  in  order  to  com- 
municate the  joyful  tidings  to  the  apostles.  (/5.  33 — 43.)  And 
not  till  after  their  arrival — not  till  after  a  full  interchange  of 
news,  did  Jesus  himself  come  "  and  stand  in  the  midst.''  {John 
XX.  19 — 23.)  It  is  certain,  therefore,  that  this  appearance — so 
important  to  the  theory  of  J.  N.  B.  in  his  own  estimation — ac- 
tually occurred  on  Monday,  instead  of  Sunday. 

*  I  have  met  with  a  pamphlet  which  attempts  to  evade  this  con- 
sideration by  urging  that,  as  the  word  "evening  had  two  meanings 
among  the  Jews,"  the  time  here  spoken  of  might  have  been  the  early 
evening  commencing  at  three  o'clock.  The  suggestion  is  entirely  gra- 
tuitous. That  the  true  "  evening"  is  intended,  is  apparent  from  all  the 
circumstances ;  especially  from  the  evening  meal  at  the  distant  village 
of  Emmaus. 

I  find  it  stated  in  Hokne's  "■Introduction  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,''^ 
that  "  the  Jews  reckoned  two  evenings  :  the  former  began  at  the  ninth 
hour  of  the  natural  day,  or  three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon ;  and  the 
latter  at  the  eleventh."  {Introduct.  vol.  iii.  part  ii.  chap.  4,  sec.  2.) 
In  this  last  particular,  Horne  is  contradicted  by  all  reliable  authority. 
(See  JosEPHus,  Jeicish  War,  Book  iv.  ch.  ix.  sec.  12.  See  also  Wil- 
son's ^^ Archceological  Dictionary,"  art.  "Day.")  The  second  or  true 
evening  did  not  begin  at  five  o'clock,  but  at  sunset.  (Mark  i.  32  ; 
Nehem.  xiii.  19.) 


220  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

A  careless  translation  corrected.  John  xx. — No  Sabbath  suggested. 

But  "notice  the  emphasis/'  says  J.  N.  B.  {p.  184) :  "Then 
tlie  same  dai/y  at  evening,  being  the  first  day  of  the 
WEEK.''  His  "  emphasis"  is  purely  fanciful :  "  being  the 
first  day,"  is  not  in  the  original.  It  is  a  careless  translation. 
The  true  reading  is  :  "  It  being  evening."  This  was  the  hisfo- 
rianJs  "  emphasis."  The  passage  is  as  follows  :  OvGr^  ow  o^taj 
*'?  W^C^  EXf  ti'j;  TfTj  fjLia  tciv  6o.68o.'tuv  :  which,  literally  rendered, 
is  :  "  It  being  then  evening  to  that  day — the  first  of  the  week." 
The  word  ^ta  (the  "  first"  day)  has  no  grammatical  construc- 
tion whatever  with  the  word  04.10$  ("  evening")  ]  it  is  solely  in 
apposition  with  rnxt^o.  (that  "  day").  This  is  very  different 
from  saying,  with  our  version,  that  the  evening  was  "  the  ^irs^ 
day"  or  "the  same  day."     It  was  "evening"  on  to  that  day. 

In  vain  will  it  be  said  that  to  us  who  adopt  the  Roman 
division  of  the  day,  the  evening  belongs  to  Sunday  :  this  is 
altogether  foreign  to  the  purpose.  All  who  were  present  on 
that  occasion  were  Jeios  ;  and  to  them,  the  evening  on  Sunday 
was  as  much  "  the  second  day"  as  the  noon  of  Monday.  It 
was  impossible,  therefore,  that  the  disciples  could  have  under- 
stood the  presence  of  Jesus  at  that  time  as  an  intentional 
distinction  of  "  the  first  day." 

7.  The  seventh  text  is  JoJm  xx.  26,  29  :  "  And  after  eight 
days,  again  his  disciples  were  within,  aiid  Thomas  loitJi  them : 
then  came  Jesus,  the  doors  being  shut,  and  stood  in  the  midst, 
and  said.  Peace  be  unto  you.  Then  saith  he  to  Thomas, 
Beach  hither  thy  finger,  and  behold  my  hands ;  and  reach 
hither  thy  hand,  and  thrust  it  into  my  side ;  and  be  not  faith- 
less, but  believing.  And  Thomas  answered  and  said  unto  him, 
My  Lord  and  my  God.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Thomas,  because 
thou  hast  seen  me,  thou  hast  believed :  blessed  are  they  that 
have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed."  This  day,  in  conse- 
quence of  having  been  thus  distinguished  as  one  on  which  an 
apostle's  incredulity  was  dissipated  by  the  irresistible  evidence 
of  sense,  may  be  assumed  to  be  a  day  of  rest ;  from  which  it 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        221 

An  unwarrantable  suggestion  of  motive.         "  Chosen  day" — of  visiting. 

is  of  course  obvious  to  every  one  that  the  Sabbath  day  has 
been  changed! 

Once  more,  my  friend,  ^^  the  thing''  is  not  here  !  "What 
possible  exercise  of  verbal  legerdemain  can  "  explain"  or  tor- 
ture this  narrative  into  Sabbatarianism  ?  Is  anything  com- 
manded by  it  ?  "  Reach  hither  thy  finger  I"  Is  anything 
practically  recommended  by  it  ?  ^'  Blessed  are  they  that  have 
not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed  !"  What  can  the  ingenuity 
of  J.  N.  B.  contrive  to  make  out  of  it  ?  "  To  honor  this  day'' 
says  he,  "  as  his  own  chosen  day,  he  met  his  assembled  disci- 
ples on  it,  and  said.  Peace  be  unto  you.  Not  till  a  full  week 
afterwards  was  accomplished,  did  he  meet  with  them  again. 
Was  there  no  significance  in  this  ?  Why  did  he  not  meet  them 
sooner  ?"  (p.  175.)  The  "  why"  has  not  been  revealed  ;  I  sup- 
pose it  was  even  so,  because  it  seemed  good  in  his  sight.  And  if 
my  friend  is  not  satisfied  with  this,  I  at  least  am  not  satisfied  to 
accept  his  gratuitous  guess  that  its  significance  was  to  change 
the  Sabbath!  (p.  185.)  We  have  nothing  "  official"  to  sug- 
gest so  extraordinary  a  stretch  of  "  fancy."  Had  such  been 
the  intention  of  Jesus,  he  would  doubtless  have  said  so ;  and 
had  he  said  so,  it  certainly  would  have  been  recorded.  "  'Add 
thou  not  unto  His  words,  lest  He  reprove  thee,  and  thou  be 
found  a  liar,'  is  a  warning  that  should  pierce  every  conscience 
to  the  quick."  (p.  164.)  "  Thine  own  mouth  condemneth  thee, 
and  not  I :  yea,  thine  own  lips  testify  against  thee  !" 

The  coyness  of  expression  employed  above  by  J.  N.  B. 
should  not  be  overlooked  :  honoring  it  "as  his  own  chosen 
day  I"  Day  chosen  for  what  ? — "  His  own  chosen  day"  of 
rest.^  Even  an  earnest  Sabbatarian  apologist  dared  not 
venture  to  announce  so  glaring  an  absurdity  : — day  "chosen" 
to  meet  his  assembled  disciples  ?  What  then  ?  This  would 
simply  be  a  precedent  for  visiting  on  that  day.  Alas,  the  day 
was  not  even  "honored"  thus:  for  more  "appearances"  ai'e 
recorded,  not  on  Sunday,  than  upoti  it!  The  sole  object  of 
this  last  appearance,  so  far  as  we  are  instructed  by  the  New 

19* 


222  ABROaATION  OP  THE  SABBATH. 

An  unproved  construction.  The  time  referred  to,  very  uncertain. 

Testament,  was  to  gratify  and  confirm  a  previously  absent 
apostle.  It  was  because  "  Thomas  was  with  them"  after  eight 
days,  that  the  presence  of  Jesus  was  thought  worthy  of  a 
special  notice;  not  because  it  happened  to  be  on  one  day  rather 
than  another.  And  after  the  general  salutation,  it  was  to 
Thomas  that  the  conversation  of  Jesus  was  addressed. 

But  "  why  wait  a  full  week  to  do  this,  unless  to  honor  the 
weekly  Sabbath,  [!]  and  to  establish  the  change  of  the  day  to 
commemorate  his  resurrection  V  (p.  185.)  Such  questionings 
are  too  trivial  for  answer  :  they  are  self-destructive.  A  more 
pertinent  inquiry  would  be,  why,  after  ^^  waiting  a  full  week  to 
do  this,"  did  he  not  do  it  ?  Why  give  no  hint  of  a  design 
'^  to  honor  the  weekly  JSahbath/'  had  such  a  design  existed? 

It  has  been  assumed,  all  along,  that  '^  after  eight  days"  from 
the  previous  appearance,  denoted  exactly  the  interval  of  a 
week.  However  unanimous  Sunday  Sabbatarians  may  have 
been  in  taking  this  for  granted,  it  is  a  point  which  never  has 
been  proved.  It  is  at  least  quite  as  probable  that  the  latter 
appearance  occurred  ^'after^'  a  week  and  a  day  from  the  former 
one,  as  upon  that  day  week.*  There  is  no  necessity  whatever 
(excepting  that  of  contributing  an  iinagmary  straw  to  a  drown- 
ing cause)  for  the  stereotype  construction.  Even  were  it 
highly  probable  that  the  construction  is  correct,  is  my  friend 
satisfied  to  rest  so  important  a  question  as  the  Divine  obliga- 
tion of  a  day  on  a  "  highly  probable"  conjecture  ?  Where  is 
his  protestantism  ?  The  very  uncertainty  of  the  expression 
should  be  sufficient  evidence  to  every  unbiassed  mind,  that  a 
specification  of  time  was  not  here  the  writer's  object,  and 
could  not  have  been  a  vital  part  of  this  account.  Had  it  been, 
it  would  have  been  written  in  letters  of  light,  the  first  day  of 
the  loeek  is  "  His  own  chosen  day"  of  rest. 

But  J.  N.  B.  is  not  alone  in  this  conjecture  !  He  notices 
that  "TowNSEND,  the  learned  Harmonist,  says  on  this  passage  : 

*  See  Note  A,  at  the  end  of  this  Reply. 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.  223 

A  "  learned  Harmonist's"  error.    "  The  third"  appearance  of  Jesus. 

^  The  first  appearances  of  our  Lord  to  his  Apostles  appear  to 
have  ttiten  place  uniformJi/  on  the  first  day  of  the  week/^' 
(p.  185.)  Indeed  ! — "Wot  ye  not  what  the  Scripture  saith?'' 
"After  these  things  Jesus  shewed  himself  again  to  the  dis- 
cijjlcs  at  the  sea  of  Tiberias.  .  .  And  he  said  unto  them,  Cast 
the  net  on  the  right  side  of  the  ship,  and  ye  shall  find.  .  .  This 
is  now  the  third  time  that  Jesus  shewed  himself  to  his  disci- 
ples, after  that  he  was  risen  from  the  dead."  {John  xxi.  1,  6, 
14.)  Here,  remarkably  enough,  we  have  an  actual  precept; 
and  since  my  friend  has  labored  so  long  and  fruitlessly  to  find 
a  warrant  of  example,  I  hope  he  will  seize  upon  it  with  eager 
gratitude.  I  hope  that  forthwith  collecting  a  chosen  few  upon 
some  pleasant  Sunday,  he  will  say,  with  Simon  Peter  of  old, 
"I  go  a  fishing  ! — not  as  a  ^fisher  of  men,'  but  with  literal 
net,  and  in  literal  boat.'' — "  We  also  go  with  thee."  We  shall 
have  the  gratifying  encouragement,  that  "the  first  appearances" 
of  Jesus  "  took  place  uniformly  on  the  first  day  of  the  iceeh  /"* 
On  that  agreeable  occasion,  J.  N.  B.  will  have  merited  at  least 
the  praise  of  consistency,  and  will  have  vindicated  the  sincerity 
of  his  regard  for  apostolic  precedent.  The  writer  he  has  so 
approvingly  quoted  will  hardly  acknowledge  himself  guilty  of 
such  "  verbal  trifiing"  as  to  apply  the  strong  term  "uniform- 
ly" to  tico  appearances  !  Alas,  that  a  "  learned  Harmonist" 
(like  the  supercilious  Sadducee)  should  so  egregiously  "  err^ 
not  knowing  the  Scriptures  /" 

But,  granting  that  the  first  appearance  of  Jesus  to  Thomas 
did  occur  just  one  week  after  the  preceding  appearance  to  the 
eleven,  what  will  it  prove?  That  appearance,  as  we  have  seen, 
was  certainly  upon  the  Jewish  "  second  day"  of  the  week  : 
whence  my  friend's  hypothesis  inevitably  establishes  this  one 

*  "  Even  supposing,  however,  that  it  had  been  so,  still  the  assigning 
this  as  a  reason  for  the  institution  of  a  new  Sabbath  is  matter  solely  of 
human  inference ;  since  no  commandment  on  this  subject,  nor  any 
reason  for  such  institution  is  found  in  all  Scripture."  Mjllton.  [Chris- 
tian JDoctrine,  Book  ii.  chap.  7.) 


224  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

No  one  day  more  "  honored"  than  another.  Five  appearances. 

on  the  same  day.  He  cannot  fail  "  to  perceive  their  force  as 
connected  links."  So  Sunday  Sabbatarianism  is  swimming 
famously  in  the  gospel  waters  ! 

Such,  then,  is  the  whole  amount  of  Bible  evidence  (supposed 
to  indicate  any  recognition  of  a  new  "  Sabbath,''  by  the  per- 
sonal example  of  Jesus)  which  the  diligence  of  J.  N.  B.  has 
been  able  to  collect. 

The  relevancy  of  the  passages  quoted  to  the  question  at  issue 
depends,  in  his  opinion,  on  their  connection  as  "  links  in  a 
chain  of  circumstantial  evidence;"  and  from  them  he  deduces 
two  assumptions  :  first,  that  Jesus  ^'  honored"  a  particular  day 
by  his  presence  with  his  disciples ;  and,  secondly,  that  in  so 
doing  he  designed  to  establish  that  day  as  "the  Sahhatli  of  the 
Christian  Dispensation."  Both  of  these  assumptions  are,  how- 
ever, singularly  deficient  in  proof.  No  particular  day  was  dis- 
tinguished by  any  special  "  appearances,"  and  least  of  all  can 
we  find  in  these  appearances  any  indications  whatever  of  a 
Sahhatic  distinction. 

a.  Of  the  five  specified  apparitions  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples, 
after  his  resurrection  (neglecting  the  indeterminate  instances 
recorded  in  1  Cor.  xv.  6 — 8),  but  a  single  one  ivas  certainly 
on  the  first  day  of  the  week  !  and  that  one  comprised  the  various 
presentations  (all  casual,  individual,  and  unexpected)  necessa- 
rily occurring  on  the  day  of  the  resurrection  !  {Matt,  xxviii. 
9;  Hark  xvi.  9—12;  LuJce  xxiv.  15—31;  John  xx.  14.) 

j3.  The  next  appearance  (if  so  I  may  venture  to  call  what 
the  last  evangelist,  from  its  continuity,  naturally  associates 
with  the  preceding)  occurred  on  the  eve  of  Monday.  {Mark 
xvi.  14 ;  Luke  xxiv.  36 ;  John  xx.  19.) 

y.  The  next  appearance,  if  it  took  place  "  after  eight  days" 
from  the  foregoing,  was  on  the  eve  of  Wednesday;  if  seven 
days  after,  was  on  Monday;  and,  on  either  supposition,  was 
certainly  not  on  ''  the  first  day."     (John  xx.  26.) 

8.  The  following  appearance  also  was  certainly  not  on  Sun- 
day (the  learned  Harmonist's  "  uniformity''^  notwithstanding), 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        225 

Xot  one  appearance  to  the  assembled  disciples, — on  Sunday ! 

since  the  preceding  day  (occupied  in  fishing)  could  not  possibly 
have  been  the  Sabbath.     (John  xxi.  3,  4.)* 

s.  And  the  last  and  most  remarkable  appearance  of  all  took 
place  on  Thursday,  forty  days  after  the  resurrection.  {Acts  i. 
3 — 9;  Mark  xvi.  19  ;  Luke  xxiv.  51.} 

It  thus  appears  that  not  a  solitary  instance  is  recorded  of 
Jesus  having  appeared  to  his  assembled  disciples  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week  !  My  friend's  "  chain  of  circumstance"  is  as 
visionary  and  disjointedf  as  his  dependent  hypotheses  are  ex- 
travagant and  illogical.  His  premises  are  absolutely  false,  and, 
even  if  true,  they  would  tend  in  no  wise  to  establish  his  con- 
clusion ! 

An  argument,  apparently  designed  to  corroborate  his  texts, 
is  sufficiently  curious  and  original  to  claim  here  a  moment's 
notice.  ^^  It  is  worthy  of  remark,^'  says  he  (p.  178),  ''that 
both  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  were  appointed  by  our 
Lord  before  his  death,  and  confirmed,  after  his  resurrection,  as 

*  Although  "the  Sabbath"  was  virtually  cancelled  hj  the.  crucifixion 
(Col.  ii.  14),  yet,  like  circumcision,  it  was  not  formally  abrogated  till 
twenty  years  afterward  (and  even  then  ostensibly  only  for  the  Gentile 
Christians, — Acts  xxi.  25),  and  its  observance  was  retained  in  the  primi- 
tive Church  at  Jerusalem  as  long  as  the  Christian  Metropolis  had  ex- 
istence. Hence  the  force  of  the  prophetic  warning,  when  it  was  said, 
"  There  shall  not  be  left  here  one  stone  upon  another  that  shall  not  be 
thrown  down."  .  .  "  Pray  ye,  that  your  flight  be  not — on  the  Sabbath 
day!"  {3Iatt.  xxiv.  2,  20.)  As  well  from  the  habits  of  the  apostles 
(Acts  xvi.  13  ;  xvii.  2 ;  xviii.  4,  &c.),  as  from  the  controlling  prejudices 
of  their  countrymen,  it  was  morally  impossible  that  they  could  have 
been  pursuing  their  ordinary  avocations  on  the  "Sabbath,"  although 
they  might  not  hesitate  at  lighter  violations.     [3Iark  ii.  23 — 28.) 

f  The  "  chain"  is  astonishingly  short,  even  on  my  friend's  own  show- 
ing. He  actually  cZa/ms  but  two  "  appearances"  for  Sunday.  {John 
XX.  14 — 25 ;  and  xx.  26.)  And  two  appearances  he  will  admit  were  not 
on  Sunday.  [John  xxi.  1 — 14;  and  Acts  i.  4.)  So  that,  after  yielding 
him  everything  he  asks,  even  his  two  "links"  are  just  pulled  out  of 
Bight  by  two  other  counter  links ! 


226  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  a  priori  argument.  Acts  ii. — A  distinction  of  Pentecost-day. 

perpetual  ordinances  in  his  Church.  Why  not  also  the  distin- 
guishing ^stated  day'  of  Christian  worship?"  Sure  enough! 
''  Why  not?"  And  why  not  a  "stated  day''  of  Christian  rest^ 
as  well?  Tioo  positive  institutions  are  expressly  enjoined  upon 
Christians,  and  if  the  New  Testament  only  contained  a  precept 
for  a  Christian  Sabbath,  why  then  we  should  have  three  "per- 
petual ordinances."  Surely,  then,  it  is  as  clear  as  can  be  that 
such  a  precept  ought,  at  least,  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testament ! 
"Analogy  would  lead  us  to  expect  this."  {p.  178.)  And  if 
not  somewhere  in  the  texts  which  have  been  presented,  where 
else,  in  the  name  of  sense,  is  it  to  be  found,  we  should  like  to 
know?  This,  I  suppose,  is  the  a  priori  argument,  or,  as  my 
friend  J.  N.  B.  would  perhaps  entitle  it,  "  the  evidence  from 
the  nature  of  the  case;"  and  fully  acknowledging  the  difficulty 
of  a  suitable  reply,  I  am  compelled  to  pass  it. 

III.  Intimations  from  Apostolic  practice. 

Having  gone  through  all  the  passages  which  appear  to  J.  N. 
B.  to  indicate  a  command  of  Jesus  to  observe  a  Sabbath,  jive 
more  texts  remain  to  be  considered,  designed  to  show  the  con- 
sequent tendency  of  apostolical  practice.  It  is  important  to 
"study  the  facts  closely,  so  as  to  perceive  their  force  as  con- 
nected links  in  the  chain  of"  sand  already  examined;  since, 
without  the  closest  inspection,  the  connection  will  be  "invisible 
to  the  naked  eye." 

8.  The  eighth  text  is  Acts  ii.  1 — 4:  "And  when  the  day  of 
Pentecost  was  fully  come,  they  were  all  with  one  accord  in  one 
place.  And  suddenly  there  came  a  sound  from  heaven, 
as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house  where 
they  were  sitting.  And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven 
tongues  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them.  And 
they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak 
with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance." 

As  a  miraculous  effusion  of  the  Spirit  is  recorded  to  have 
taken  place  on  this  day,  and  as  this  communicated  the  power  of 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        227 

The  day  of  the  week,  not  even  mentioned. 

speaking  in  previously  unknown  languages,  we  may  plausibly 
conjecture  that  this  day  either  was,  or  (d  priori)  "ought"  to 
have  been  a  ''Sabbath.''  And  if  we  grant  this,  by  a  very 
slight  extension  of  the  presumption,  we  may  infer  that  no  other 
day  could  possibly  be  the  one  required  by  the  fourth  com- 
mandment ! 

We  read  that  the  apostles  "were  all  with  one  accord  in  one 
place."  Now,  "why  not  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath?"  asks  J.  N. 
B.,  with  his  accustomed  pungency,  {p.  186.)  Well,  why  not? 
It  is  very  probable  they  were.  Why  not  on  Ascension-day,  or 
Thursday?  Why  not  on  Crucifixion-day,  or  Friday?  Why 
not  on  any  day,  or  all  days  ?  All  that  a  rational  criticism  can 
gather  from  the  text  is,  that  the  apostles  were  together  on  this 
occasion  because  it  was  Pentecost-day^  not  because  it  was 
Ascension-day,  or  Crucifixion-day,  or  Sabbath-day,  or  Resur- 
rection-day. This  was  no  part  of  the  essence  of  the  narrative. 
It  was  so  utterly  indifferent,  in  the  estimation  of  the  evangelist, 
that  he  has  not  even  taken  the  trouble  to  notice  the  day  of  the 
week  on  which  Pentecost  fell  that  year,  and  we  can  only  infer 
it  by  calculation !  Now,  admitting  that  the  day  icas  Sunday, 
where  can  lie  concealed  a  prop  for  my  friend's  theory  of  a 
"transfer"  of  the  day  of  rest?  After  the  "closest  study,"  I 
cannot  discover  it.  What  hint  is  there  of  the  Christian  duty, 
or  of  the  apostolic  intention,  of  making  this  day  a  Sahhath? 
"The  thing''  is  not  here! 

Whatever  be  the  fact,  it  was  not  "  the  first  day  of  the  week" 
that  was  thus  distinguished  "  by  the  rich  harvest  of  regenerated 
souls"  {p.  186) ;  it  was  "  the  day  of  Pentecost:'  J.  N.  B.  has 
here,  as  usual,  very  illogically  mistaken  the  accident  for  the 
essence.  Whatever  sanction  he  imagines  he  can  here  find  for 
celebrating  in  any  manner  a  particular  day,  it  can  have  no  force 
in  sustaining  any  weekly  festival :  it  can  only  encourage  the 
observance  of  Pentecost  .'* 

*  In  the  opinion  of  some  learned  expositors,  the  text  will  not  even 
warrant  this.     Gbotius  remarks  on  the  passage,  that  the  8yriac  and 


228  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

An  alternative  presented.  Acts  xx. — No  Sabbath. 

We  are  presented  then  with  the  following  alternative.  If 
this  day  of  Pentecost  happened  on  Sunday,  this  Sunday  could 
not  possibly  have  been  a  Christian  "  Sabbath/^  or  Luke  would 
have  given  some  intimation  of  it.  He  could  not  have  avoided 
it.  It  was  a  matter  altogether  too  important  to  the  Church 
to  entirely  escape  remark.  His  silence  is  an  overwhelming 
battery  against  J.  N.  B. — a  most  decisive  refutation  of  his  con- 
jecture. On  the  other  hand,  if  the  day  did  not  happen  on  Sun- 
day, his  aerial  fabric  has  not  even  the  sand  to  rest  upon.* 

9.  The  ninth  text  is  Acts  xx.  6,  7 :  "And  we  sailed  away 
from  Philippi,  after  the  days  of  unleavened  bread,  and  came 
unto  them  to  Troas  in  five  days ;  where  we  abode  seven  days. 
And  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  the  disciples  came 
together  to  break  bread,  Paul  preached  unto  them  (ready  to 
depart  on  the  morrow),  and  continued  his  speech  until  mid- 
night." Upon  which  my  friend  remarks :  "  This  passage  is 
so  decisive  of  the  custom  of  the  Gentile  churches,  under  the 
eye  and  sanction  of  the  inspired  Apostles,  as  to  startle  even  W. 
B.  T.  himself. [!]  But  he  attempts  to  evade  it  by  siip2^osingj 
contrary  to  the  express  words  of  the  text,  that  this  meeting 
was  held  on  Saturday  evening,  and  that  Paul  had  so  little  re- 
gard to  the  First  day  of  the  week  as  to  purpose  recommencing 
his  journey  on  that  day  !  A  more  gratuitous  and  glaring  per- 
version of  a  plain  text,  I  never  met  with.  As  the  glory  of  this 
new  discovery  is  all  his  own,  he  may  safely  be  left  '  alone  in 
his  glory.' ''  (p.  187.) 

That  I  was  "startled''  (*.  e.  that  I  ^^ ougM^  to  have  been 
startled)  was  probably  gathered  "from  the  nature  of  the  case:" 

Latin  versions  excellently  [optime)  read  it — "  When  the  days  of  Pente- 
cost were  accomplished."  WiCKL IF  renders  it  in  the  same  manner: 
*'  Whanne  the  dales  of  Pentecoste  weren  fillid."  That  is,  not  when  the 
Pentecost  "  was  come,"  but  when  the  Pentecost  was  "  over  and  gone  !" 
Upon  such  slender  cobwebs  are  suspended  even  the  postulates  of  Sun- 
day Sabbatarianism ! 

■^  See  Note  B,  at  the  end  of  this  Ptcply. 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.         229 

"  Evasion,"  unnecessary.  Paul's  evening  discourse — on  Saturdaj/. 

but  if  so  formerly, — d  fortiori  how  much  ought  I  to  be  startled 
now,  at  that  peculiar  system  of  exposition  which  supposes  vague 
and  reckless  assertion  will  be  accepted  by  the  intelligent,  as  a 
substitute  for  Biblical  criticism. 

My  friend  is  in  error  in  thinking  that  I  have  "  attempted  to 
evade"  his  text :  it  is  not  at  all  in  my  way.  And  to  perform 
so  unnecessary  a  task,  would  indeed  be  "love's  labor  lost.'' 
However  J.  N.  B.  may  twist  the  passage,  or  however  he  may 
squeeze  it,  he  can  wring  from  it  no  prohibition  o/icork  on  Sun- 
day. Least  of  all,  can  he  find  any  possible  connection  between 
it  and  the  fourth  commandment !  Still  returns  the  echo  "  the 
thing' ^  is  not  here! 

Unnecessary  as  it  may  appear,  I  shall  however  here  endeavor 
to  justify  my  former  suggestive  criticism  (p.  94, — note) ;  and  as 
a  superfluous  '^  labor  of  love,"  examine  "  closely"  the  passage 
before  us.  We  are  told  in  it,  that  Paul  preached  "  upon  the 
first  of  the  week,  .  .  .  and  continued  his  speech  until 
midnight."  It  is  impossible  for  any  candid  mind  (unwarped 
by  theoretic  prejudices)  not  to  understand  that  this  nocturnal 
discourse  was  delivered  on  the  night  of  the  first  day  of  the  week; 
and  it  is  equally  impossible  for  any  instructed  mind  (acquainted 
with  the  Jewish  religion)  not  to  know  that  the  night  of  the  first 
day  of  the  week  must  be  Saturday  night,  and  can  he  nothing 
else!  J.  N.  B.  knows  as  well  as  I  do,  that  the  first  day  of  the 
week  terminated  at  the  sunset  of  Sunday.  And  yet  a  con- 
struction— natural — obvious — rendered  necessary  by  the  cir- 
cumstances, he  has  had  the  hardihood  to  stigmatize  as  "  con- 
trary to  the  express  words  of  the  text  I"  If  he  supposes  the 
address  was  on  any  other  night  than  Saturday  night,  I  retort 
the  accusation  :  I  charge  that  the  record  itself  contains  nothing 
to  either  warrant  or  favor  his  guess  !  I  charge  that  he  is  the 
one  guilty  of  "  siqjposing,  contrary  to  the  express  words  of  the 
text" — "  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,"  Paul  *^  continued 
his  speech  until  midnight."  "  If  any  man  speak,  let  him  speak 
as  the  oracles  of  God  !" 
20 


230  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Assemblies  of  the  early  Christians.  Paul's  departure — on  Sunda]/. 

Fortunately  for  the  cause  of  truth,  we  have  an  extraneous 
evidence  strongly  corroborating  the  literal  and  obvious  inter- 
pretation of  this  passage.  The  earliest  Christian  writers  more 
than  once  refer  to  the  evening  meetings  of  the  primitive  disci- 
ples ;  and  I  have  already  quoted  the  unexceptionable  testimony 
of  MosiiEiM  (compiled  from  these  sources),  that  the  first 
Christians  assembled  on  different  days  of  the  week,  and  ''  ge- 
?ier«%  in  the  evening  after  sunset,^'  (p.  145, — note.)  If  Paul 
met  with  the  disciples  at  the  close  of  the  Sabbath,  *'  in  the 
evening  after  sunset,^  ^  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,*  and  dis- 
coursed till  midnight,  is  it  not  simply  prejJos^eroKS  to  "  sup- 
pose," for  the  especial  benefit  of  J.  N.  B.,  that  this  "  protracted 
meeting'^  continued  for  twenty-four  hours  longer? — nay,  not 
only  to  the  midnight  of  ''the  second  day,"  but  to  the  day- 
break of  Monday  ?  My  friend's  magisterial  ''  supposition" 
finds  no  support  from  the  narrative  :  it  is  fairly  contradicted 
It/  it!  "A  more  gratuitous  and  glaring  perversion  of  a  plain 
text,"  will  not  often  be  met  with. 

But  Paul  discoursed — "  ready  to  depart  on  the  morrow." 
^'  Ay,  there's  the  rub  ! — There's  the  respect"  that  makes  my 
friend  so  indignantly  reject  the  literal  reading !  To  think 
"  that  Paul  had  so  little  regard  to  the  first  day  of  the  week,  as 
to  propose  recommencing  his  journey  on  that  day  !"  (p.  187.) 
And  ^'  wh^  not  f'— to  use  a  familiar  question.  There  is  no- 
thing in  the  world  in  Paul's  way,  but  the  modern  exhalation 
of  a  most  unsubstantial  tlieory.  Not  long  before  this,  "  Paul 
had  so  little  regard"  for  dai/s,  that,  writing  to  the  Romans  in 
conciliation  of  their  disputes  on  the  question  of  "  esteeming 

*  An  able  English  writer,  discussing  this  p.assage,  remarks  :  "It  ia 
not  at  all  probable,  and  it  cannot  be  assumed,  that  the  meeting  took 
place  sooner  tlian  in  the  evening,  and  if  not  till  the  evening,  then  not 
till  the  working  hours  of  the  day  were  over."  [An  Examinalion  of  I  he 
Six  Texts,  &c.,  chap,  ii.,  London,  1849.)  The  writer  is  attempting 
(vex-y  unnecessarily)  to  show  that  the  text  is  in  no  sense  Sabbatarian ; 
and,  in  doing  so,  misses  its  more  vital  bearing. 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        231 

Paul,  no  observer  of  clays.  ''  His  practice  at  Troas" — >ln</-sabbatarian. 

one  day  above  another,"  he  urged  upon  them  the  mutual  exer- 
cise of  the  most  perfect  and  tolerant  discretion  :  assuring  them 
that  those  who  venerated  3l particular  day,  and  those  who  "es- 
teemed every  day  alike,"  could,  with  equal  acceptance,  practise 
their  respective  persuasions '' unto  the  Lord."  A  few  years 
previously,  this  same  "  Paul  had  so  little  regard  to  the  first 
[or  any  other]  day  of  the  week,"  that  he  strongly  condemned 
the  Sabbatizing  Galatians  for  their  foolishness  in  continuiog  to 
"observe  days"  as  holy,  after  he  had  carefully  instructed  them 
to  avoid  the  bondage  of  these  "  weak  and  beggarly  elements  ;" 
and  in  terms  of  cutting  reproof,  he  expressed  himself  fearful 
"lest  he  had  bestowed  upon  them  labor  m  vain."  "Why 
should  it  be  thought  a  thing  incredible,"  then,  that  Paul  should 
on  this  occasion  maintain  the  independence  and  consistency  of 
his  character  ?  Think  you  that  "  wherein  he  judged  another, 
he  condemned  himself?"  Think  you  that  lie  could  "observe 
days" — doing  the  same  thing  he  so  warmly  rebuked  ?  Think 
you  that  "  a  guide  of  the  blind,  and  a  light  of  them  which  were 
in  darkness,"  he  could  invite  the  Romans  to  retort  upon  him 
the  taunt — "  thou  which  teachest  another,  teachest  thou  not 
thyself?"  Impossihle!  "  For  if  I  build  again,"  says  he,  "  the 
things  which  I  destroyed,  I  make  myself  2i  transgressor."  (^Gal. 
ii.  18.) 

But  all  this  makes  the  text  contradict  the  very  purpose  for 
which  it  was  adduced  !  Yes,  truly  !  my  friend.  Your  battery 
is  turned  against  yourself  with  destructive  energy.  I  shall  not 
permit  it  to  be  silenced.  I  shall  endeavor  to  justify  the  high 
praise,  "Truth  is  Truth,  alike  whether  she  carries  the  balm  of 
life,  or  the  weapon  of  death."  (p.  181.)  "  Hast  thou  appealed 
unto  Caesar  ?  Unto  Caesar  shalt  thou  go  !"  Will  you  tell  us 
concerning  "  the  inspired  Apostle,"  that  "  his  practice  at  Troas 
is  positive  proof  that  he  regarded  the  first  daj^  of  the  week  as 
the  Christian  Sahhathr'  (p.  188.)  What !  "  attempt  to  evade 
the  text  by  supposing  :"  Where  is  your  warrant  ?  "By 
what  authority  doest  thou  these  things?" — "Yea,  hath  God 


232  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  assembly  not  a  religious  one.  An  argumentative  conversation. 

said?"  Paul's  '^practice  at  Troas"  is  positive  proof  that  he 
regarded  the  first  day  as  anything  else  than  a  "  Sabbath!"  It 
was  a  day  to  labor  in — "  from  even  unto  even."  Your  fancied 
"  chain"  is  but  a  slip-noose,  pinching  the  hand  that  held  it. 
It  is  too  conclusive  for  legitimate  controversy,  it  is  too  clear 
for  hopeful  evasion,  that  Paul  met  with  the  disciples  of  Troas 
on  the  eve  of  "  the  Jirst  day;"  that  he  discoursed  with  them  till 
the  daybreak  of  "  the  Jirst  day;"  that  on  the  morning  of  "  the 
Jirst  day"  he  departed.  Dare  you  plead  Paul's  ^'  practice  ?" — ■ 
"  Go  and  do  thou  likewise." 

Let  us  still  more  thoroughly  cross-examine  this  invaluable 
witness  of  Sunday  Sabbatarianism.  It  is  a  remarkable  circum- 
stance that  the  more  "  closely  we  study"  the  narrative  the  less 
evidence  does  it  present,  even  of  a  religious  assemblage,  in  the 
modern  acceptation  of  the  phrase. 

But,  it  is  said,  ^'Tsiul  preached,"  (verse  7;)  and  ''was  long 
preaching."  (verse  9.)  Not  so !  If  we  turn  to  the  language 
in  which  Luke  lorote,  we  shall  find  that  he  says,  IlavXos  Si^xsy* f  o 
avroij:  literally,  "Paul  reasoned  with  them,"  "discoursed" 
with  them,  "had  a  controversy"  with  them.*  The  same  word 
occurs  just  before  (Acts  xvii.  2):  "Paul,  as  his  manner  was 
[SifXfyET'o  aurois],  reasoned  with  them."  Again,  in  verse  17, 
AifXEyfto,  "he  disputed"  with  the  Jews.  In  the  next  chapter 
(xviii.  4),  AuXfytfo,  "he  reasoned"  in  the  synagogue.  In  the 
next  chapter  (xix.  8,  9)  we  twice  find  hio.'Ksyoy.tvoi,  ^UUsputing." 
Not  long  afterward  (xxiv.  12)  we  have  again  Bta^tyoixsvov,  ^'dis- 
puting;" and,  in  verse  25,  iiLia^syoixsvov  avtov,  "as  he  reasoned" 
of  righteousness,  &c.  The  translation  of  the  word  is  general. 
But  why  "come  together"  on  this  occasion  merely  to  have 
a  " discussion ?"  Another  "not  so!"  The  historian  says  ex- 
pressly, "the  disciples  came  together  to  break  bread."     The 

*  WiCKLiF  (a.  d.  1380)  translates  the  passage:  "Poule  disputid 
with  hem."  The  translation  of  Rheinis,  two  centuries  later  (a.  d. 
1582),  renders  it  in  the  same  manner:  "Paul  disputed  with  them  ;" — 
in  the  Vulgate,  "  disputabat  cum  eis." 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        233 

A  social  assembly  of  the  disciples : — To  "  break  bread." 

discussion  was  incidental.  Yes,  but  "to  break  bread"  means 
"to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper.''  Wholly  unproved!  The 
phrase  "breaking  bread"  was  the  universal  and  familiar  desig- 
nation of  partaking  an  ordinary  meal.*  There  is  no  tittle  of 
evidence  that  anything  else  is  intended  here.  On  the  contrary, 
during  this  very  same  meeting,  Paul,  after  midnight,  exhausted 
by  his  long  and  doubtless  earnest  conversation,  again  "broke 
bread"  and  eat  (xx.  11)  ;t  rendering  it  extremely  probable 
that  the  whole  affair  was  a  convivial  farewell  party  of  the  dis- 
ciples. They  "came  together  to  ^ break  their  bread,'  "  and  for 
no  other  purpose  that  is  assigned  by  the  evangelist. 

But,  says  J.  N.  B.,  "Paul  had  waited  a  tchole  iceek  at 
Troas  to  enjoy  the  opportunity  of  meeting  his  assembled 
brethren  on  their  'stated  daij  of  loorsliipr^  {j).  187.)  What 
a  pity  that  Luke  forgot  to  tell  us  so  I  When  shall  the  anxious 
public  be  gratified  by  the  appearance  of  my  friend's  "first 
edition"  of  the  Supplementary  Testament  ?  It  will  doubtless 
be  an  accession  to  Biblical  literature  beyond  valuation !     If 

*  See  Luke  xxiv.  30,  35,  where  Jesus  was  recognized  in  "breaking 
of  bread,"  that  is,  at  the  supper  table  (probably  in  consequence  of 
lights  being  just  brought  in) ;  also.  Acts  ii.  46  :  "breaking  bread  [that 
is,  eating  their  meals]  from  house  to  house,"  for  they  "had  all  things 
in  common."  Again,  Acts  xxvii.  35,  Paul  having  persuaded  the  sailors 
to  eat,  took  bread  and  "broke  it."  The  popular  acceptation  of  the 
phrase  is  familiar  to  every  scholar.  In  Vaxpy's  Greek  Testament  there 
is  the  following  comment  on  this  passage:  "In  the  Jewish  way  of 
speaking,  says  Bishop  Pearce,  to  'break  bread'  is  the  same  as  to  make 
a  meal ;  and  the  meal  here  meant  \_Acts  xx.  7]  seems  to  have  been  one 
of  those  which  were  called  ayifjrai,  agapce,  love-feasts." 

Chbtsostom  thinks  it  "an  ordinary  meal." 

As  Milton  well  says  upon  this  text:  "Who  shall  determine  with 
certainty  whether  this  was  a  periodical  meeting,  or  only  held  occasion- 
ally and  of  their  own  accord ;  whether  it  was  a  religious  festival,  or  a 
fraternal  meal?"     [Christian  Doctrine,  b.  ii,  ch.  7.) 

I  Did  Paul  again  "celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper?"  or  had  the  disci- 
ples indeed  delayed  thejprme  object  of  their  assembly  till  after  midnight  ? 

20* 


234  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  narrative  disembellished.  Acts  xxi.— No  observance  stated. 

Paul  really  did  "  wait  a  wJiole  weeh''  to  meet  with  his  brethren 
for  worship,  he  possessed  a  much  smaller  degree  of  zeal  than 
is  generally  attributed  to  him.  I  suppose  that  he  abode  one 
"whole  week"  at  Troas  just  as  he  "abode  three  months"  in 
Greece,  because  the  spirit  moved  him.  And  a  probable  reason 
why  he  stayed  no  longer  was,  that  he  was  in  somewhat  of  a 
hurry  to  get  back  to  Jerusalem. 

Stripped,  then,  of  all  the  cumbrous  though  flimsy  scaffolding 
which  J.  N.  B.  has  so  liberally  piled  around  the  text,  and 
viewed  in  its  own  simplicity,  how  different  are  its  proper  fea- 
tures and  proportions.  All  that  we  can  certainly  gather  from 
Luke's  journal  is,  that  Paul  and  his  travelling  companions, 
being  about  to  leave  Troas  after  a  week's  sojourn,  collected 
with  their  friends  in  a  third-story  chamber,  for  the  purpose  of 
partaking  their  social  meal  (the  Sabbath  being  past,  and  it 
being  then  "the  first  day  of  the  week"),  that  an  earnest  con- 
versation or  argumentation  ensued,*  continuing,  with  some 
interruption,  till  the  daybreak  of  "the  morrow,"  when  Paul 
started  on  his  journey,  broad  Sunday  though  it  was ! 

10.  The  tenth  text  is  Acts  xxi.  4,  5 :  "And  finding  disciples, 
we  tarried  there  seven  days :  who  said  to  Paul,  through  the 
Spirit,  that  he  should  not  go  up  to  Jerusalem.  And  when  we 
had  accomplished  those  days,  we  departed  and  went  our  way ; 
and  they  all  brought  us  on  our  way,  with  wives  and  children, 
till  we  were  out  of  the  city :  and  we  kneeled  down  on  the  shore 
and  prayed." 

It  is  unnecessary  to  waste  further  time  by  criticizing  this 
passage.    Simply,  "the  thing,"  which  has  so  constantly  eluded 

*  An  incident  which,  though  trivial  in  itself,  has  yet  an  interest  as 
probably  going  to  illustrate  the  absorbing  interest  of  "the  inspired 
Apostle"  in  the  subjects  of  that  long-continued  discussion,  and  the  ab- 
straction of  his  mind  from  all  minor  matters,  is  left  us  in  the  circum- 
stance of  his  having  forgotten  his  cloak  and  books,  leaving  them  behind 
Ht  Troas.  (2  Tim.  iv.  13.)  By  Lardner's  computation,  this  second 
letter  to  Timothy  was  written  but  a  few  months  after  the  visit  referred  to. 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        235 

A  day  of  worship,  and  "  work."  1  Corinthians  xvi. — A  day  of  "  Charity." 

our  grasp,  is  not  here.  J.  N.  B.  himself  can  hardly  derive  an 
evidence  of  Sabbath  observance  from  the  natural  circumstance 
of  Jews  measuring  their  time  by  weeks!  How  frequently  do 
we  ourselves  find  our  movements  unconsciously  regulated  by 
the  "week,"  even  when  no  reference  whatever  is  had  to  an  in- 
tervening Sabbath.  It  is  unavoidable.  In  the  case  before  us 
we  may  safely  grant,  however,  that,  if  any  day  of  the  week 
was  distinguished  as  a  Christian  Sabbath,  it  most  probably  oc- 
curred some  time  during  the  short  sojourn  of  Paul  and  Luke 
with  the  disciples  of  Tyre !  Unfortunately  for  my  friend,  the 
only  act  of  worship  hinted  at  in  his  text  occurred  on  the  day 
of  departure.  This  day  might  have  been,  as  before,  "the  first 
of  the  week;"  it  certainly  was  not  a  "Sabbath." 

11.  The  eleventh  text  is  1  Corinthians  xvi.  1,  2:  "Now 
concerning  the  collection  for  the  saints,  as  I  have  given  order 
to  the  churches  of  Galatia,  even  so  do  ye.  Upon  the  first  day 
of  the  week  let  every  one  of  you  lay  by  him  in  store,  as  God 
hath  prospered  him,  that  there  be  no  gatherings  when  I  come." 

And  what  is  the  important  "fact"  which  my  friend^s  highly 
refractive  vision  discovers  in  this  passage,  bearing  on  the  institu- 
tion or  sanctification  of  the  Sabbath  P  He  informs  us  (p.  187) 
that  Paul  here  "gives  order  for  the  observance  of  the  first  day 
of  the  week,  as  the  day  sacred  to — Christian  Charity  F'  And 
consequently  Sunday  must  be  the  day  required  by  the  fourth 
commandment!  \s  this,  i\iQ  sequitur ?  This  is  "transubstan- 
tiation"  with  a  witness!  If  J.  N.  B.  can  establish  these  three 
assumptions, — 1,  that  "Charity"  is  one  of  the  things  exacted  by 
the  statute;  2,  that  a  "day  of  Christian  Charity"  is  necessa- 
rily a  day  in  which  "thou  shalt  not  do  any  work;"  and  3,  that 
this  in  any  way  excludes  "the  seventh  day"  from  the  appro- 
priate operation  of  the  Decalogue, — I  will  freely  assent  to  the 
"consequence."  Till  he  does,  I  tell  him,  with  emphatic  and 
defiant  assurance,  "the  thing"  is  not  here!  A  day  of  Christian 
charity  should  be  a  ijcorhing  day.  Will  J.  N.  B.  prove  it  to 
be  a  resting  day?     "Giving  my  friend  the  benefit  of  the  most 


236  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

No  reference  made  to  any  assembly.  The  day  observed — "  at  Jwme.'" 

liberal  concession  he  can  claim/'  that  ''Sunday  assemblies" 
were  by  this  time  (the  middle  of  the  first  century)  widely  and 
familiarly  established  among  various  of  the  primitive  churches, 
it  would  leave  the  true  question,  the  sin/ulness  of  LABOR  on 
'*the  first  day"  wlioUy  untouclied! 

But  are  we  fairly  entitled  to  infer  even  the  irrelevant  fact  of 
"Sunday  assemblies"  from  this  text?  Let  us  give  it  a  mo- 
ment's attention.  The  injunction  is :  Ixaato^  vixcov  rta^'  lavfco 
tcOsTfoi,  ^Tjaav^i^oiv  u  -ti  av  fvoSwfat:  literally,  ''let  each  one  of 
you  lay  up  with  himself,  storing  as  he  may  prosper;"  or,  as  it 
may  with  equal  propriety  be  rendered,  "let  everyone,  treasur- 
ing up  what  he  may  gain,  reserve  it  at  home."  Two  important 
circumstances  are  disclosed  by  a  critical  analysis  of  the  passage. 
First,  that  these  "collections"  were  not  to  be  made  (as  Sunday 
Sabbatarians  very  unanimously  assume)  in  "Sunday  assem- 
blies" of  the  Galatian  and  Corinthian  churches,  but  each  indi- 
vidual was  to  set  apart  from  his  weekly  gains,  privately — Tta^' 
la-vtM  (in  the  Vulgate,  '^ ajmd  se"),  by  himself — "at  his  own 
home."*  And  secondly,  that  these  "gatherings"  had  no  rela- 
tion to  any  assemhlies  whatever,  since  each  member  was  ex- 
pressly enjoined  not  only  to  reserve  a  portion  of  his  earnings, 
but  to  continue  separately  lioardhig  these  appropriations.  The 
only  possible  antecedent  subject  of  ^j^cyav^t^oi'  is  the  separative 
axasto^,  "each  one  of  you  treasuring  up"  as  he  has  been  suc- 

*  So,  in  John  xx.  10,  the  disciples  went  away — w^oj  kavTovQ — "unto 
their  own  home."  See,  also,  Greenfield's  Lexicon,  Bloomfield's 
Greek  Testament,  in  loco,  and  Valpy's  do.  The  old  Syriac  version  ren- 
ders this  passage  :  ''Let  every  one  lay  aside  iin^  preserve  at  Ms  otvn 
house."  Erasmus  (a.  d.  1520)  paraphi'ases  it:  "Upon  the  first  day 
of  the  week  (that  is  to  say,  in  the  Sunday)  let  every  one  of  you  set 
aside  at  home  and  lay  up  as  much  as  he  for  this  purpose  thinketh 
meet."  (^Paraphrase,  in  loco.)  Tyndale  translates  it  (a.  d.  1534): 
"Upon  some  Sunday  [sondaye]  let  every  one  of  you  put  aside  at  home 
and  lay  up  whatsoever  he  thinketh  meet,  that  there  be  no  gatherings 
when  I  come."  The  Geneva  translation  (a.  d.  1557)  is  similar:  "Every 
first  day  of  the  week  let  every  one  of  you  put  aside  at  home,''  &c. 


MR.  TAYLOR  S  THIRD  REPLY. 


The  text — ,4n^('-sabbatarian.  No  "  holy  cla.y,"  in  all  Paul's  writings. 

cessful  in  his  business;  an  impossibility  by  the  Sabbatarian 
construction.  The  literal  explicit  text  absolutely  contradicts 
this  favorite  perversion.*  *'It  is  clear  that  J.  N.  B.  has  not 
studied  the  facts  closely,  so  as  to  perceive  their  force!" 

So  far,  therefore,  from  lending  even  a  shadow  of  support  to 
the  fondly  cherished  hypothesis  of  a  "  stated  day,'^  and  any 
particular  establishment  of  '^Sunday  assemblies,''  the  passage 
indirectly  but  not  indecisively  overthrows  the  fancy.  If  the 
''first  day  of  the  week"  had  been  pre-eminently  a  "stated  day 
of  public  worship,"  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been  the  best 
time  for  counting  up  and  laying  aside  gains  ^^  at  homej"  and 
vice  versa.  My  friend's  artillery  kicks  hackioard  much  more 
disastrously  than  it  discharges  forward.  I  am  indebted  to  him 
for  the  munition.  And,  as  if  to  deprive  him  of  all  hope  of 
recovering  from  this  mischance,  he  has  no  ordnance  in  store 
to  substitute.  For,  most  unaccountably,  throughout  the  volu- 
minous writings  of  Paul,  we  cannot  find  a  single  notice  of  what 
J.  N.  B.  claims  ''as  a  legacy  from  the  church's  risen  and 
ascended  Lord,"  a  "stated  day,"  holier  than  other  days!  We 
cannot  trace  one  meagre  hint  of  such  a  thing.  So  glaring  an 
omission  in  the  great  doctrinal  expounder  must  occasion  my 
friend  a  degree  of  concern  scarcely  exceeded  by  his  surprise. 

*  "The  inference  deduced  from  1  Cor.  xvi.  2,"  says  Milton,  "is 
equally  unsatisfactory  [with  that  deduced  from  Acts  xxi.]  ;  for  what 
the  apostle  is  here  enjoining  is  not  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  day, 
but  that  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  (if  this  be  the  true  interpretation 
of  xena.  fjusa  aa^tnTon,  per  unam  sahbathorum)  each  should  lay  by  him, 
that  is  at  home,  for  the  relief  of  the  poor ;  no  mention  being  made  of  any 
public  assembly,  or  of  any  collection  at  such  assembly,  on  that  day." 
[Christ.  Doctrine,  b.  ii.  ch.  7.) 

From  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  it  has  been  urged,  says  Whitby, 
that  for  each  "to  lay  by  in  store"  must  signify  "to  put  into  a  common 
box  his  charity;  because,  if  they  had  kept  it  'at  home,'  there  would 
have  been  need  of  gathering  it  when  the  apostle  came.  But,"  he  justly 
replies,  "the  expression  ixao-rof  Tra^'  iavrtu  TiSsnn),  'let  every  one  place 
it  u-ith  himself,'  admits  not  this  sense."     (Annotations,  in  loco.) 


288  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Constant  reproliation  of  •'  holy  days."  A  jiidifious  selection  of  time. 

Nay,  yet  to  transcend  the  marvel,  tlie  apostle  does  now  and 
then  say  a  thing  or  two,  which  laborious  ingenuity  has  vainly 
endeavored  to  reconcile  with  that  precious  "legacy,"  a  holt/ 
dai/  !  80  that,  "  according  to  the  views  of  [J.  N.  B,]  Paul,  at 
the  same  time,  as  it  were  in  the  same  breath,  designates  this 
day,  and  destroys  it,— -abrogates,  and  honors  it !"  (p.  187.) 
Most  unfortunate  of  theorists  !     (^Gal.  ii.  18.) 

"It  is  worthy  of  attention,"  says  he  (p.  187),  "  that  a  few 
months  before  writing  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Paul  wrote 
his  first  to  the  Corinthians,  in  which  (xvi.  1-^4)  he  gives  order 
for  the  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  the  day 
sacred  to  Christian  Charity  !"  It  will  not  answer.  Corinthian 
Paul  will  not  abate  one  jot  of  Roman  Paul.  In  Corinth,  "  the 
observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,"  so  far  as  the  text 
shows,  was  fxafjT'o^  Tta^'  tavtio — -"a^  Jiovie."  In  Rome,  "let 
every  man  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind"  whether  he 
will  "esteem  07ie  day  above  another,"  or  "every  day  alike  !" 
"  This  is  Paul's  true  doctrine,  here  and  everywhere.  It  is  identi- 
cal with  that  of  Christ.  Perish  the  sophistry  that  would  at- 
tempt to  set  them  at  variance!"     (p.  173.) 

But  why  should  Paul  have  selected  this  particular  time  ? 
Why  direct  these  charitable  contributions  to  be  made  on  "the- 
first  day  of  the  week  ?"  The  answer  is  obvious :  because  no 
other  time  could  be  so  proper  for  the  object.  Will  the  last  day 
of  the  week  be  suggested  ?  It  would  have  favored  neither  Jew 
nor  Gentile.  To  the  Jewish  believer  the  occupation  of  casting 
up  accounts,  considering  gains,  and  appropriating  funds,  would 
not  have  seemed  the  most  literal  requirement  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment, "Christian  Charity"  though  it  were;  and  to  him 
who  observed  not  the  Sabbath  it  would  have  been  no  less 
inopportune,  since  his  labors  for  the  week  would  not  have  yet 
been  over.  The  Christian  communities  to  whom  these  appeals 
for  the  mother  Church  were  made  were  composed  chiefly  of  the 
poorer  classes, — of  those  least  likely  and  least  able  to  exercise 
a  judicious  providence.     How  natural,  then,  the  thoughtful 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.  239 

EireJatiott  i. — A  proof — ••' of  nothing.''  Nocturnnl  si.ght. 

specification  (as  if  incidentally) :  Kara  fiiav  oaSSattov — "at  the 
beginning  of  the  week."  What  more  suitable  time  conceivable, 
for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  how  much  of  the  past  week's 
earnings  could  be  set  apart,  than  the  completion  of  that  week, 
after  the  Sabbath  was  over,  and  Saturday  evening  "was  fully 
come,''  ushering  in  "the  first  day  of  the  week  ?"  {Luke  iv. 
40.)  Rather,  what  other  time  could  have  been  specified?  And 
what  other  i\mQ  could  have  been — Jess  a  ^^  Scihhathf'  My 
friend's  castle  vanishes  at  the  approach,  "into  thin  air." 

12.  The  twelfth  and  last  text  is  Revelation  i.  10  :  "I  was 
in  the  Spirit  on  the  Lord's  clay,  and  heard  behind  me  a  great 
voice  as  of  a  trumpet."  A  fitting  climax  to  the  pyramid  of 
quicksand  my  friend  has  so  industriously  struggled  to  heap 
together.  Admirable  valediction  of  Sunday  Sabbatarian  vaga- 
ries, which,  built  on  bottomless  assumption,  end  in  unfathom- 
able mysticism.  ""Finis  coronal  ojmsl"  To  the  initiated,  to 
those  who  "  knoiv  of  the  doctrine,"  it  must  be  overwhelmingly 
perspicuous  that  a  day  in  which  a  trumpet-voice  is  heard,  and 
a  rapt  prophet  is  "in  the  Spirit,"  can  be  nothing  else  than  the 
"Sabbath  day"  of  the  fourth  commandment! 

"  '  This  text,'  says  W.  B.  T.,  perfectly  confounded,  ^proves — 
nothing  at  all!'  Just  so,  once  at  Damascus,  dazzled  by  a  glory 
too  bright  for  his  weak  vision,  an  enemy  of  Christ  for  a  season 
was  struck  blind.  .  .  .  So  my  perplexed  friend  says,  ^  this  text 
proves — nothing  I'  From  my  heart  I  pity  him."  {pp.  188, 
189.) 

If  lam  not  exactly  " perplexed" and  "perfectly  confounded," 
cl  priori,  I  "ought"  to  have  been;  and  this,  in  my  friend's 
logic,  is  pretty  much  the  same  thing.  Beaming  upon  us  with 
the  efi'ulgence  of  the  sun  at  midnight,  no  doubt  this  nebulous 
text  "ought"  to  settle  the  question,  and  confound  forever  all 
weak  eyes.  I  cannot  pretend  to  rival  my  friend  in  seeing. 
Those  not  gifted  with  phosphorescent  vision  are  all  unconscious 
of  the  "glory"  apparent  to  those  more  favored  individuals  who 
distinguish  best  by  darkness,  because  their  own  eyes  furnish 
the  illumination  whereby  they  see. 


240  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

A  Sabbatarian  Pharisee  "  at  Damascus."  Unwarranted  assumptions. 

I  am  reminded  that  there  was  one  of  Tarsus,  who,  "  after 
the  most  straitest  sect  of  his  religion,  lived  a  Pharisee,"  and 
kept  the  Sabbath  :  but  dazzled  by  a  sudden  splendor, — the  illu- 
minating baptism  of  a  clearer  and  a  freer  faith, — when  the  short 
season  of  his  "blindness"  passed,  steadfastly  repudiated  his 
venerated  law  for  its  "weakness  and  unprofitableness;"  and 
" putting  away  the  childish  things"  of  "meats,  and  drinks, 
and  HOLY  DAYS,"  thenceforward  "  after  the  way  which  they 
called  '  heresy' — worshipped  the  Grod  of  his  fathers."  Unlike 
Saul,  "  the  enemy  of  Christ,"  I  have  not  been  "  exceedingly 
zealous  of  the  traditions  of  my  fathers :"  like  Paul,  the  adher- 
ent of  "  a  sect  everywhere  spoken  against,"  I  unshrinkingly 
withstand  the  anti-evangelical  imposition  "after  the  command- 
ments and  doctrines  of  men" — of  a  crucified  and  blotted  ordi- 
nance; however  prevalent  or  determined  the  subjection,  with 
whatever  "show  of  wisdom  in  will-worship,"  it  may  be  upheld. 

But  what  are  the  premises  necessary  to  render  this  luciferous 
text  available  to  my  friend's  cause?  The  fewest  possible  are 
three.  1.  That  "the  Lord's  day"  here  intended  Sunday.  2. 
That  it  was  so  called  because  it  was  "dedicated  to  the  Lord  ty 
his  authority^'  And  3.  That  being  so  dedicated,  it  must,  in 
consequence,  be  a  "  Sabbath."  Any  one  of  these  three  postu- 
lates failing,  his  text  is  absolutely  useless;  the  connecting  link 
between  it  and  the  necessary  conclusion  being  wanting.  Now 
so  far  from  these  three  things  being  indisputable  facts,  I  assert 
that  no  one  of  them  has  been  established !  Nay,  I  hesitate  not 
to  say,  that  no  one  of  them  can  be  established !  J.  N.  B.  has 
prudently  not  attempted  to  establish  one  of  them :  unless  an 
extravagant  indulgence  will  consider  assertion  an  "attempt."* 
"  If  no  one  (the  ^  Friends'  excepted)  pretends  to  doubt  that 
the  *  Lord's  Table,^  ^  the  Lord's  cup,'  and  ^  the  Lord's  Supper' 
(1  Cor.  xi.)  prove  the  existence  oi  an  Ordinance  of  universal 
and  perpetual  obligation  under  the  Christian  Dispensation,  how 

*  See  Note  C,  at  the  end  of  this  Reply. 


MR.  Taylor's  tuird  reply.  241 


No  "  ordinance"  of  a  Christian  Sabbath.        Unjustifiable  amplifications. 


idle  is  such  a  doubt  in  reference  to  ^  the  Lord's  day !'  Honest 
men  should  blush  to  own  such  a  doubt. '^  (p.  188.) 

To  relieve  my  friend  from  all  imputation  of  discourtesy,  I 
have  the  pleasure  to  assure  him  that  I  own  no  particle  of 
'^ doubt"  upon  the  subject;  and  may,  therefore,  I  presume,  be 
held  excused  from  blushing,  without  any  impeachment  of  my 
honesty.  But  what  wretched  'Verbal  trijiing^'  have  we  in 
this  passage:  what  ^'darkening  of  counsel  by  words  without 
knowledge.'^  Every  intelligent  man  sliould  know  that  'Hhe 
Lord's  Table,"  "the  Lord's  cup,"  and  "the  Lord's  Supper" 
DO  NOT  "prove  the  existence  of  an  Ordinance;"  that  these 
designations  are  its  merest  accidents!  Every  consistent  Pro- 
testant knows  that  "an  Ordinance  of  universal  and  perpetual 
obligation"  can  be  proved  only  by  "  chapter  and  verse"  or- 
daining. Every  honest  reader  of  his  Bible  knows  that  with 
regard  to  a  "  Christian  Sabbath,"  none  such  exists!  J.  N.  B. 
himself  has  been  compelled  unreservedly  to  acknowledge,  that 
this  is  "a  kind  or  degree  of  evidence  which  Infinite  Wisdom 
has  not  seen  fit  to  give"  (p.  170);  and  that  even  to  look  for 
it,  was  "preposterous  !"  (p.  172.) 

The  passage  immediately  preceding  this  most  unworthy 
sophism  of  my  friend  J.  N.  B.  is  an  appropriate  introduction 
to  it :  "  Here  is  '  the  Lord's  day'  in  the  Christian  Church [!] 
at  the  close  of  the  Apostolic  age ;  as  such  too  well  known  to 
need  explanation, [! !]  sanctioned  by  the  last  of  the  Apostles  of 
Christ,[!!!]  and  by  Christ  himself  indeed,[! ! !!]  with  the  last 
vision  of  his  glory  accorded  to  man  on  earth."  (p.  188.)  In 
what  language  shall  I  rebuke  this  daring  tissue  of  perversion  ? 
Has  the  solemn  warning,  with  which  this  book  of  prophecy 
closes  {Rev.  xxii.  18),  been  utterly  unheeded? 

Step  by  step  have  I  now  followed  the  trail  on  which  my 
friend  promised  we  should  find  "  the  thing" — a  New  Testament 
"  Sabbath  :"  but  the  most  careful  search  has  been  fruitless. 
Step  by  step  has  the  evidence  become  more  irresistible  that 
we  have  been  led  "  a  wild-goose-chase" — altogether  vpon  the 
21 


242  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

No  Sabbath  in  any  of  the  twelve  texts.  The  selection  unfortunate. 

wrong  track!  And  now  that  we  have  arrived  at  the  last  pos- 
sible hiding-place  of  this  imaginary  nondescript,  this  thing 
''  without  a  name/'*  no  vestige  of  it  is  apparent :  "  the  thing^' 
is  not  here!  Our  labor  has  been  wasted;  our  patience  abused. 
And  yet  we  are  told,  with  a  gravity  as  ludicrous  as  it  is  arro- 
gant, that  the  invisibility  is  owing  to  the  dazzling  excess  of 
perspicuity !  And  my  friend  can  aiford  to  extend  a  conde- 
scending "  pity"  to  those  who  do  not  choose  to  accept  the  ge- 
nerous offer  of  his  tenebrious  eyesight ! 

On  casting  a  retrospective  glance  at  the  "  twelve  texts'' 
which  J.  N.  B.  has  thought  proper  to  parade  in  support  of  his 
side  of  the  point  at  issue  ("  the  Day  required  hy  the  Sahhath 
law"),  two  subjects  of  surprise  are  irresistibly  suggested.  The 
first  is  that  he  should  have  hit  upon  this  particular  collection 
of  texts  rather  than  upon  some  other  dozen  (considering  that 
several  of  them  are  really  among  the  most  destructive  ones  to 
his  own  dogma  he  could  possibly  have  selected);  and  the  other 
is,  that  he  should  have  been  so  moderate  as  to  limit  their  num- 
ber, at  any  rate,  to  a  single  dozen,  when  he  could  so  easily  have 
adduced  a  gross  of  texts  ftir  more  pertinent  to  the  point  in  con- 
troversy than  the  ver}^  best  he  has  chosen.  It  is  a  fact,  un- 
mistakable and  unescapable,  that  he  has  failed — wholly,  irre- 
trievably failed — to  make  out  even  a  pretext  of  a  case !  He 
has  been  able  to  find  no  solitary  passage  (I  will  not  say  im- 
peaching) tending  to  impeach  my  "  First  Proposition."  It 
stands  uncontroverted — incontrovertible.  Not  one  of  his  texts 
has  a  surmise  of  relation  to  the  foui-th  commandment  !'\  In  a 
logical  point  of  view,  it  is  a  matter  for  dissatisfaction,  that  I 
have  wasted  so  much  time  in  superfluous  battle  :  but  my  friend's 

*  "If  we  find  the  thine/ — is  it  not  the  merest  verbal  trifling  to  dis- 
pute about  the  nameV^   [p.  190.) 

■f  Perhaps — excepting  text  the  second  (Isai.  Ixv.):  and  this  is  so 
clearly  Anti-sabbatarian  in  purport,  that  GiiOTius  actually  quotes  this 
prophecy  to  show  that  all  days  are  equally  holy  under  the  new  crea- 
tion !     LowTH  makes  a  similar  application. 


MR.  TAYLOR  S  THIRD  REPLY.  243 

Appeal  to  history.  Tlieological  authority  incompetent. 

dislike  of  "  summary"  executions  furnishes,  to  myself  at  least, 
a  partial  excuse  for  my  unnecessary  and  self-imposed  labors. 
And  if  but  a  single  Sunday -led,  ordinance-subjected  reader  may 
have  been  thereby  inducted  into  a  more  rational  and  Scriptural 
appreciation  of  this  great  question,  the  time  I  have  employed 
will  not  have  been  misspent.  I  have  endeavored  to  unfold  the 
subject,  "not  with  enticing  words,"  but  with  "sound  speech 
that  cannot  be  condemned;"  hoping,  "by  a  manifestation  of 
the  truth,  to  commend  the  doctrine  to  every  man's  conscience." 

ly.    Sujjplementar}/  Intimations  from  Tlieohgical  History. 

A  very  feeble  attempt  has  been  made  by  J.  N.  B.  to  fortify 
his  position  by  an  appeal  to  theologic  authority ;  but  in  the 
entire  absence  of  Scriptural  foundation,  such  an  appeal  cannot 
for  one  moment  be  entertained,  or  such  authority  for  one  mo- 
ment received  in  evidence.  There  is  nothing  on  which  it  can 
act,  or  to  which  it  can  give  direction.  It  can  have  no  original 
jurisdiction.  Premising  that  I  have  thus  no  occasion  whatever 
to  even  notice  his  citations,  I  am  still  impelled  by  the  control- 
ling claims  of  Truth  to  follow  my  friend  even  here.* 

*  In  an  excellent,  though  anonymous  work  on  "  The  Sabbath" 
(published  in  London,  1849),  it  is  stated  that  "no  ecclesiastical  writer 
of  the  first  three  centuries  of  the  Christian  era  has  attributed  the  ori- 
gin of  Sunday  observance  either  to  an  injunction  or  the  example  of  the 
Apostles,  or  to  any  precept  from  Christ  himself:  a  fact  which  is  exceed- 
ingly strong  evidence,  that  at  no  time  during  that  period  did  there  exist 
in  the  Christian  Church  any  belief  or  tradition  that  the  religious  ob- 
servance of  the  Sunday  originated  in  a  divine  appointment."  {^Chap. 
viii.  p.  307.)  The  full  title  of  this  volume  (which  is  distinguished  by 
accurate  scholarship  and  judicious  criticism)  is  "The  Sabbath  ;  or  an 
Examination  of  the  Six  Texts  commonly  adduced  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  proof  of  a  Christian  Sabbath.  By  a  Layman.  London,  1849." 
I  have  had  occasion  to  refer  to  this  work  once  before  {p.  230, — note)  ; 
and  have  once  or  twice  availed  myself  of  the  author's  labors  without 
particular  notice. 

Jeremy  Taylor  shrewdly  argues  from  the  computation  of  Easter 


244  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Athanasius:  His  testimony  misapplied. 

1.  "According  to  Coleman  (^Christian  Antiquities,  p.  430), 
^Athanasius,  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  [properly /oi^r^A] 
century  (a.  d.  325),  expressly  declared  that  the  Lord  changed 
the  Sabbath  into  the  Lord's  day/  "  (^p.  166.)  If  my  friend, 
instead  of  depending  on  hearsay  evidence  {as  inadmissible  in 
logical  as  in  legal  investigation),  had  brought  his  witness  into 
court,  he  would  have  found  that  his  testimony  has  been  per- 
verted and  misapplied.  It  will  perhaps  occasion  surprise  to 
some  to  learn  that  Athanasius,  in  the  passage  alluded  to,  is 
actually  attempting  to  show  ivh?/  the  fourth  commandment  is 
not  obligatory.  Referring  to  the  very  customary  observance 
of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  (which  relic  of  the  Synagogue  lingered 
for  centuries  in  the  Church),  he  explains :  ''We  assemble  on 
the  Sabbath  day,  not  that  we  are  infected  with  Judaism  (for 
we  have  never  embraced  its  pseudo-sabbaths),  but  we  assemble 
thus  on  this  day  to  worship  Jesus,  the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath. 
Formerly,  indeed,  the  Sabbath  was  properly  honored  by  those 
of  old,  hut  the  Lord  displaced  the  Sabbath  by  the  Lord's  day/^ 
Nor  do  we  contemn  the  Sabbath  by  our  authority  merely,  but 
the  Prophet  himself  rejects  it,  saying  :  'Your  new  moons  and 
your  Sabbaths  my  soul  hateth.'  As  long,  indeed,  as  those 
things  were  performed,  which  were  proper  by  the  institution 
of  the  law,  or  rather  as  long  as  the  Master  had  not  come,  the 
sway  of  the  tutor  maintained  its  authority ;  but  when  the 
Master  came,  the  tutor  was  supplanted,  as  at  the  rising  of  the 
sun  the  lantern  is  extinguished. '^  (Opera:  Tom.  i.,  Homilia 
de  JSemente.)]'     That  Athanasius  did  not  in  this  passage  design 

adopted  by  the  eastern  churches  and  the  disciples  of  St.  John,  that 
"this  must  needs  be  a  demonstration  that  the  day  of  the  resurrection 
was  not  holy  by  divine  or  apostolical  institution."  (Duct.  Diib.  B.  u. 
chap.  ii.  rule  6,  sec.  55.) 

*  MsTgflnxg  h  0  Kwf lof  T»v  Tou  a-atSetTcv  h/xe^av,  m  Kvptaxny :  literally : 
"  The  Lord  changed  the  Sabbath  day  into  the  Lord's  day." 

f  I  believe  that  throughout  the  voluminous  writings  of  this  Father, 
the  term  *'  Sabbath"  is  never  applied  to  the  first  day  of  the  "week,  but 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        245 

The  doctrine  of  Athaxasics — ^n^j-sabbatarian. 

to  iutimate  that  "  the  Lord's  day"  became  'Hhe  Sabbath/'  in 
my  friend's  language  {p.  52),  "  absorbing  into  itself  all  the 
authority  of  the  original  law,"  is  clear  from  his  previous 
*'  Treatise  on  the  Sabbath,"  in  which  he  says  :  "  The  Lord's 
day,  which  is  the  heginning  of  the  new  creation,  ended  the 
Sabbath;  as  this  same  regeneration  in  man  superseded  circum- 
cision." And  again,  after  remarking  that  the  Sabbath  com- 
memorated the  termination  of  God's  creative  labors,  he  adds : 

tmiformly  to  the  seventh  day.  Certain  it  is  that  Athanasius  never 
claims  the  authority  of  the  fourth  commandment  as  sustaining  any 
observance  of  Siinday.  And  this,  be  it  observed,  so  late  as  the  fourth 
century.  I  remarked,  in  my  former  Reply  {p.  98, — note),  that  "I  be- 
lieved no  solitary  writer  could  be  found,  in  the  first  two  centuries  of  the 
Christian  era,  who  ever  called  Sunday  the  Sabbath."  My  friend  J. 
N.  B.  has  not  attempted  to  question  its  correctness;  and  yet  he  would 
have  us  believe  that  the  commandment  was  transferred  to  "  the  first 
day,"  by  Divine  authority  establishing  that  day  as  "the  Sabbath"  of 
the  Christian  dispensation,  while  throughout  the  earlier  and  purer 
ages  of  the  Church,  no  one  ever  thought  of  calling  "  the  thing"  hy  its 
appropriate  ^^name."  I  believe  I  may  give  him  a  broader  issue,  and 
add  another  century.  If  correct,  we  shall  have  to  admit  that  "it  was 
not  till  erroneous  views  of  the  day  of  Christian  worship  began  to  be 
entertained  that  it  was  ever  supposed  to  *  absorb  into  itself  the  authority 
of  the  original  law,'  the  fourth  commandment."  [p.  99, — note.)  J.  N.  B. 
has  met  this  oddly  enough,  by  saying:  "This  statement  of  my  friend 
requires  no  answer.  It  is  sx  mere  begging  of  the  questio7i."  (p.  191.)  He 
mistakes  ;  it  is  a  negation  of  the  question.  He  that  affirms,  must 
prove.  My  friend  would  doubtless  be  well  pleased  to  transfer  the 
burden  of  proof  from  his  own  shoulders  ;  but  for  once  I  must  decline 
accepting  it. 

I  will  merely  observe  that  the  diligent  and  scrutinizing  Lardner 
derives  a  strong  argument  against  the  genuineness  of  "  The  ApostoKcal 
Constitutions,"  from  the  circumstance  of  their  ordaining  that  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  should  be  observed.  On  which  he  correctly  remarks, 
that  "the  Apostles  of  Christ  never  gave  such  instructions  about  keeping 
the  Sabbath;"  and  that  such  instructions  "are  more  suitable  to  the 
fourth  or  fifth  century,  than  to  the  most  early  times  of  Christianity." 
(^Credibil.  B.  i.  chap.  Ixxxv.  sec.  6.) 

21* 


246  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

EusEcius :  His  testimony — ^nfi-sabbatarian. 

*^But  the  second  creation  had  not  an  end ;  so  that  he  took  no 
rest,  but  works  even  to  the  present.  And  hence  we  do  not 
keep  the  Sabbath,  as  they  did  in  the  former  dispensation,  but 
hope  for  a  future  Sabbath  of  Sabbaths,  in  which  the  new 
creation,  having  no  end,  shall  be  established  a  perpetual  holy 
day.  (Tom.  i. —  Tract,  de  Sabbatis  et  Circumcisione.')  I  ten- 
der the  testimony  of  my  friend's  witness,  as  a  valuable  and  per- 
spicuous corroboration  of  my  Scriptural  doctrine,  that  Sunday 
is  not  the  "  Sabbath." 

2.  J.  N.  B.  continues  (p.  166):  ''Coleman  adds:  'The 
account  which  Eusebius  gives  of  this  subject  is  that  the  Logos, 
the  Word,  in  the  New  Testament,  transferred  the  Sabbath  of 
the  Lord  Grod  unto  this  day.'  "  The  account  which  Eusebius 
gives  of  the  subject  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  (the 
work  from  which  the  above  has  been  incorrectly  quoted),  is  as 
follows :  "  This  Psalm  is  superscribed  '  For  the  Sabbath.' 
Now  even  the  Priests  in  the  temple  did  various  works  on  the 
Sabbath  in  conformity  with  the  law ;  so  that  it  did  not  require 
from  them  an  absolute  rest ;  nor  indeed  loas  the  Sabbath  day 
appointed  for  the  priests,  but  only  for  such  as  could  not  devote 
their  whole  life  to  the  worship  of  Grod,  and  all  their  days  to 
works  acceptable  to  Him.  Hence  it  was  enacted  for  them  to 
attend  to  these  things  at  stated  intervals."  Then,  after  a 
citation  of  the  severe  denunciation  of  Isaiah  (chap.  i.  13, 14), 
occurs  the  passage  :  "  Wherefore  the  word  through  the  new 
covenant  transferred  the  festival  from  the  Sabbath  to  the 
dawning  of  the  light,"  &c.  ...  "On  that  day,  which  is  the 
first  day  of  light,  and  of  the  true  sun,  we  assemble  together 
(six  days  intervening),  and  celebrating  spiritual  Sabbaths,  per- 
form according  to  the  spiritual  \^^  what  was  appoiiited  for  the 
priests  to  do  on  the  Sabbath  ;*  for  we  make  spiritual  offerings 

*  "Have  ye  not  read  in  the  law,  how  that  on  the  Sabbath  days, 
the  priests  in  the  temple  profane  the  Sabbath,  and  are  blameless  ?" 
{Matt.  xii.  5.) 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        247 

Justin  Martyr  :  An  unfortunate  appeal. 

and  sacrifices/'  &c "  And  indeed  whatever  other  things 

it  was  proper  to  accomplish  on  the  Sabbath,  these  we  have 
transferred  to  the  Lord's  day  as  being  pre-eminent  in  dignity, 
and  more  honored  than  that  Sabbath  of  the  Jews.  For  upon 
this  first  day,  God  at  the  creation  having  said :  '  Let  there  be 
light,'  the  light  was,"  &c.  {Commentar.  in  Psalmos,  Ps.  xci.*) 
The  same  author,  in  another  work,  likens  the  Patriarchs  to 
Christians,  by  observing:  "  Thei/  regarded  not  carnal  circum- 
cision, neither  do  we;  they  regarded  not  an  observance  of 
Sabbaths^  NEITHER  DO  WE ;  they  regarded  not  an  abstinence 
from  certain  meats,  and  other  distinctions  which  Moses  first 
instituted,  and  transmitted  to  be  typically  obeyed,  neither  do 
Cliristiana  observe  such  ceremonies  now."  (^UisL  Eccles.  lib.  i. 
cap.  4.)  I  tender  my  friend,  Eusebius  as  a  strong  witness 
that  Sunday  is  not  the  "  Sabbath." 

3.  Justin  Martyr  (says  J.  N.  B.,p.  167)  '^assigns  as  the 
reasons  for  observing  the  first  day  of  the  week,  commonly 
called  Sunday,  as  the  day  of  Christian  worship,  that  on  this  day 
God,  having  changed  the  darkness  and  the  elements,  created 
the  world,  and  that  Jesus  our  Lord  on  this  day  arose  from  the 
dead." 

Most  unfortunate  allusion  !  This  witness  strikes  away  the 
very  corner-stone  of  Sunday  Sabbatarianism;  and  denies  all 
possible  connection  between  Sunday  and  the  fourth  command- 
ment !  The  "  Sabbath"  was  ordained  on  a  particular  day, 
because  that  on  a  corresponding  period  God  "rested"  {ishib- 
both)  from  his  work;  "wherefore  the  Lord  blessed  the 
Sabbath  day"  {Exod.  xx.  11) ;  but  Justin  maintains  that  '^the 
first  day"  was  not  a  rest  day,  but  was  memorable  for  the  dia- 
metrically opposite  and  incompatible  reason  that  then  the 
Creator  began  to  work  !  And  he  moreover  assigns  this  as  the 
primary  reason  for  commemorating  the  day  !     "On  the  day 

*  Being  Psalm  xcii.  of  the  common  version. 


248  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Testimony  of  Justin  Martyr — ^li^f'-sabbatariaii. 

of  tlie  Sun  [Ttjv  8e  tov  tj-kiov  •Yjixs^av],'^  we  commonly  all  meet 
together,  because  it  is  the  first  day  in  which  God,  transforming 
the  darkness  and  the  chaos,  made  the  world."  (1st  Apology ; 
addressed  to  the  Emperor  Antoninus  Pius,  A.  D.  147.)  It  is 
too  plain  for  discussion  that  this  day  could  not  be  the  Lord's 
Sahhath.  Not  only  does  Justin  omit  all  notice  of  any  prac- 
tice among  the  early  Christians  of  abstaining  from  labor  on 
Sunday,  or  of  any  supposed  obligation  to  do  so,  but  he  informs 
us  in  the  most  explicit  manner  that  the  day  was  not  observed 
as  a  Sabbath.  He  contends  that  the  Sabbath,  like  circumcision, 
was  wholly  and  unconditionally  abolished  by  the  gospel ;  and 
that  there  was  no  more  need  for  a  Sabbath  since  the  advent  of 
Christ,  than  there  had  been  use  of  it  among  the  Patriarchs 
before  its  enactment  by  Moses.  (Quoted  ante,  p.  97.)  "  The 
new  law,"  says  he,  in  refutation  of  the  Sabbatarians,  *'  will 
have  you  keep  a  perpetual  Sabbath ;  but  ye  think  when  ye 
have  passed  a  day  in  rest  that  ye  have  fulfilled  your  religious 
duty.  ...  If  any  one  among  you  is  perjured,  or  dishonest,  let 
him  cease  to  do  evil;  if  any  one  is  adulterous,  let  him  repent, 
and  he  will  have  kept  the  true  Sabbath,  and  the  one  acceptable 
to  God."  (^Dialog,  c.  Trijjjh.  p.  i.)  I  call  my  friend's  atten- 
tion to  the  circumstance  that  this  is  not  "a  happy  metaplior'' 
(p.  79) ;  it  is  given  as  literal  truth ;  it  is  the  calm  consistent 
doctrine  of  all  his  writings;  and  not  alone  of  his,  but  of  those 
of  all  the  early  Fathers.  I  tender  my  friend  this  witness  as 
a  most  conclusive  one  that  Sunday  is  not  the  " JSabbath.^f 

^  Not  the  day  "of  the  Lord,"  be  it  observed. 

f  Notwithstanding  that  Justin  Martyr  expressly  denies  that  there 
was  any  Sabbath  before  Moses  [cum  T/yph.),  J.  N.  B.  seems  really 
disposed  to  extort  from  this  Father  some  countenance  of  that  chimera, 
a  patriarchal  Sabbath!  After  exalting  the  Sabbath,  as  "at  once 
combining  in  its  weekly  rotation  the  three  grandest  displays  of  the 
Divine  glory  [!],  and  establishing  the  real  harmony  of  the  Patriarchal, 
the  Mosaic,  and  Christian  dispensations,"  he  adds:  "Although  the 
deliverance  from  Egypt  is  less  prominent  [!]  in  our  thoughts  as  Gen- 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.  249 

Ec.vtan:  His  view  essentially  -Ix^i-sahbatarian. 

4.  J.  N.  B.  has  made  another  attempt  to  smuggle  in  John 
BuNYAN.  Deprecating  the  requirement  of  "t\\Q  seventh  day/^ 
he  remarks  :  ''In  this  sense  I  fully  agree  with  Bunyan,  'As 
for  the  seventh  day,  that  is  gone  to  its  grave,  with  the  signs 
and  shadows  of  the  Old  Testament.' ''  (p.  168.)  An  important 
word  in  the  quotation  has  been  omitted  "  probably  from  in- 
advertence.''  My  friend  does  not  "agree  with  Bunyan''  in 
any  sense.  That  independent  thinker  correctly  holds  that  it 
is  "the  seventh  day  Sahhatli,  that  as  we  see,  is  gone  to  its 
grave.''  And  it  was  this  sentiment  that,  in  my  last  Reply  {p. 
147, — note),  I  challenged  my  friend  "  to  indorse ;''  and  which  I 
hope  he  will  yet  have  the  courage  and  consistency  to  do,  with- 
out reservation.  In  Bunyan's  theology,  it  is  the  fourth 
COMMANDMENT  that  "is  gone  to  its  grave,  with  the  '  signs^ 
and  'shadows'  of  the  Old  Testament,"*  I  commend  the  fact 
to  my  friend's  more  attentive  consideration ;  and  I  confidently 
tender  him  this  witness  in  addition  to  his  others,  as  likewise 

tiles,  yet  so  early  as  tlie  days  of  Justin  Martyr,  we  find  the  other  tioo 
ideas  actually  in  the  minds  of  Christians  [!].  For  he  assigns  as  the 
reasons  for  observing  the  first  day  of  the  week,  commonly  called  Sun- 
day, as  the  day  of  Christian  worship,  that  on  this  day,  God  having 
changed  the  darkness  and  the  elements,  created  ihQ  world  [!],  and  that 
Jesus  our  Lord  on  this  day  arose  from  the  dead."  [p.  167.)  Well, 
really  !  And  what  in  the  name  of  common  sense  has  all  this  to  do  with 
the  Sabbath? — the  day  on  which  *'  God  rested  from  all  his  work." 

A  patriarchal  Sabbath  is  one  of  the  most  notable  assumptions  in 
speculative  theology  ;  and  its  sublimest  phase  is  the  modern  intuitive 
discovery  that  a  Cliristian  Sunday  Sabbath  was  the  true  primitive  type, 
the  Saturday  of  the  Creator's  chronology,  being  to  man  "  the  first  day 
after  his  own  creation,"  and  naturally  his  Sunday.  The  question 
whether  Adam  enjoyed  his  "  sublime  repose"  from  creation  on  Satur- 
day or  Sunday  becomes  thus  a  somewhat  equivocal  one.  (See  an 
elaborate  "Sermon,  with  notes,"  by  Prof.  Lee.  Cambridge,  England, 
1833.) 

^  My  friend,  as  "Editor"  of  Bunyan's  Practical  Works,  cannot  be 
ignorant  of  this. 


250  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  witnesses  all  reclaimed.  Burden  of  proof. 

furnishing  a  satisfactory  testimony  that  Sundoi/  is  not  the  day 
required  in  the  Decalogue  ! 

I  believe  these  are  all  the  authorities  cited  by  J.  N.  B.  to 
corroborate  his  unscriptural  assumption  -,  but  so  far  from  giving 
it  any  countenance,  I  claim  that  they  one  and  all  confirm  my 
^'Proposition/^  that  Saturday  is  the  Sabbath  demanded  by 
the  fourtJi  commandment. 

W.  B.  T. 


PART  III. 
TRUE  PERIOD  AND  CHARACTER  OF  THE  SABBATH. 


*'  The  'Law  and  the  Prophets'  were  until  John :  since  that  time  the 
^Kingdom  of  God'  is  preached." — Luke  xvi.  16. 

"The  Lord  hath  caused  the  solemn  feasts  and  Sabbaths  to  be  for- 
gotten in  Zion.  .  .  Her  King  and  her  princes  are  among  the  Gentiles  : 
the  Law  is  no  more." — Lamentations  ii.  6,  9. 

"For  there  is  verily  a  disannulling  of  the  commandment  going  be- 
fore, for  the  weakness  and  unprofitableness  thereof." — Hebrews  vii.  1 8. 

"Sabbath  days  .  .  .  are  a  'shadow'  of  things  to  come;  but  the 
'body'  is  of  Christ."  (Colossians  ii.  17.)  "And  his  'rest'  shall  be 
'glorious.'  " — Isaiah  xi.  10. 

"Thei'e  remaineth  therefore  a  keeping  of  a  Sabbath,  to  the  people  of 
God.  For  he  that  is  entered  into  his  rest,  he  also  hath  ceased  fi'om 
his  own  'works,'  as  God  did  from  his."  ["For  He  spake  in  a  certain 
place  of  'the  seventh  dag'  on  this  wise,  'And  God  did  rest  the  seventh 
day  from  all  his  works.'"] — Hebrews  iv.  9,  10,  4. 

"If  that  which  is  done  away  was  glorious,  much  more  that  which 
'remaineth'  is  'glorious.'  Seeing  then  that  we  have  such  hope,  we  use 
great  plainness  of  speech." — 2  Corinthians  iii.  11,  12. 

"If  this  counsel  or  this  work  be  of  men,  it  will  come  to  nought :  but 
if  it  be  of  God,  ye  cannot  overthrow  it ;  lest  haply  ye  be  found  even  to 
fight  against  God." — Acts  v.  38,  39. 


It  is  obvious  that  the  burden  of  proof  lies  wholly  on  him 
who  affirms  the  existence  of  another  Sabbath  than  that  of  "the 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.  251 

Sunday,  not  Sabbath. — Jrfs  ii. — xiii. — Galat7a7}s  iv. 

seventh  day  -/'  and  that  on  the  failure  of  that  proof  the  theory 
must  fall.  Still,  from  the  superabundant  strength  of  the  cause 
I  advocate,  I  am  inclined  to  a  work  of  supererogation;  and  shall 
here  show,  by  the  direct  testimony  of  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures — -Jirst,  that  Sunday  is  7ioc  a  Bible  "Sabbath,'^  in 
any  sense  whatever;  and  secondly,  that  Saturday  is  "the 
Sabbath,^^  and  the  onlt/  Sabbath  known  to  the  apostles. 

First ;  I  shall  establish  that  Sunday  is  in  no  sense  whatever 
a  Bible  or  Christian  Sabbath. 

1.  I  am  authorized  to  assume  (without  believing)  that  the 
day  spoken  of  in  Acts  ii.  1  was  Sunday;  since  J.  N.  B.  has 
very  positively  asserted  it.  That  this  day  was  not  a  Sabbath, 
is  clear  from  the  manner  in  which  it  is  referred  to.  A  Sabbath, 
Divinely  instituted  in  commemoration  of  the  resurrection, 
"  must,  in  the  esteem  of  all  Christians,  be  of  far  higher  and 
sweeter  import"  than  any  purely  Jewish  festival,  as  was  "  the 
day  of  Pentecost."  When,  therefore,  neglecting  all  allusion  to 
the  one  character,  the  historian  narrates  the  incidents  of  the 
day  solely  with  reference  to  the  latter  and  less  important 
character,  the  conviction  is  irresistible  that  it  could  not  have 
been  a  gospel  "Sabbath." 

2.  We  are  informed,  in  Acts  xiii.  42  (a.  d.  45),  that  on  a 
Saturday,  the  Gentiles  of  Antioch  were  so  well  pleased  with 
Paul's  discourse  that  they  earnestly  desired  him  to  repeat  it 
on  the  next  Sabbath.  Here  was  the  very  occasion  for  the 
preacher  to  have  instructed  these  eager  Gentiles  that  the  day 
following  was  the  true  Sabbath,  when  he  would  be  pleased  to 
meet  them,  and  discuss  the  topics  suggested  by  the  "resur- 
rection-day." It  was  an  occasion  forced  upon  him.  But 
alas  !  "the  inspired  Apostle"  was  all  unconscious  of  the  grand 
discovery  of  modern  theologies;  and  passing  over  Sunday 
without  a  notice,  patiently  awaited  the  next  Saturday,  (verse 
44.)  I  tender  this  text  with  confidence,  as  a  most  decisive 
proof  that  Sunday  was  not  then  a  "  Sabbath." 

3.  The  writer  of   Gcd.  iv.  10  (a.  d.  53)  could  not  have 


252  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

1  Corinthians  xvi. — Romans  xiv. — Acts  xx. — Colossians  ii. 

condemned  the  '^  observance  of  daj/s,"  if  Sunday  had  been 
Divinely  appointed  for  Christian  observance.  An  exception 
was  imperatively  demanded ;  and  could  on  no  explanation 
have  been  omitted.  The  true  offence  of  the  foolish  Galatians 
would  have  been  that  they  did  not  ''  observe"  the  riyhf  day  : 
but  this  was  not  the  charge.  "Ye  observe  da^s!" — If  Sun- 
days, the  observance  is  reproved!  If  not  Sundays,  their  ob- 
servance had  not  been  established !  This  text  is  lucid  proof 
that  Sunday  was  not  then  a  "  Sabbath.'' 

4.  The  injunction  contained  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  2  (a.  d.  56) 
likewise  could  not  have  been  given,  if  "the  first  day"  had 
been  a  "stated  day"  of  worldly  rest.  Equally  impossible  was 
it  for  this  day  to  be  specified  without  some  allusion  to  its  sacred 
character,  had  such  been  recognized.  This  text  confirms  the 
evidence  that  Sunday  was  not  then  a  "Sabbath," 

5.  An  important  link  in  the  chronological  chain  is  found  in 
Rom.  xiv.  5  (a.  d.  58).  If  the  first  day  of  the  week  had  ever 
by  Divine  authority  been  specially  dedicated  as  "the  Lord's 
day,"  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  an  "inspired  apostle" 
to  give  unqualified  permission  to  ^^  esteem  every  day  alike  T' 
This  text  affords  the  most  irrefragable  demonstration  that  Sun- 
day was  not  then  a  "Sabbath."* 

6.  From  Acts  xx.  7, 11  (a.  d.  60),  we  learn  "that  Paul  had 
so  little  regard  to  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  to  commence  his 
journey  on  that  day;"f  an  unequivocal  indication  that  Sunday 
was  not  then  a  "  Sabbath." 

7.  The  last  text  I  shall  adduce  is  Col.  ii.  16  (a.  d.  62), 
which  denies  in  toto  the  obligation  of  either  "holy  days"  or 

■5^  <'If  Paal's  language  in  that  chapter  be  taken  without  any  limita- 
tion, [!]  it  strikes  equally  against  the  Chi-istians'  Lord's  day  as 
against  the  Sabbath  of  the  Decalogue."  J.  N.  B.  {p.  19.)  My  friend 
seems  to  suspect  that  "the  Christians'  Lord's  day"  is  not  exactly  the 
same  thing  as  "the  Sabbath  of  the  Decalogue!" 

f  A  precedent  for  this  is  suggested  by  the  somewhat  similar  instance 
recorded  in  Luke  xxiv.  13. 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.  253 

Saturday,  the  only  Apostolic  Sabbath. — Luke  xxiii. — Acts  xiii. — xv. 

*^  Sabbath  days."  If  this  does  not  refer  to  the  first  day,  it  is 
positive  proof  that  Sunday  was  not  then  a  "Sabbath;'^  if  it 
does  refer  to  the  first  day,  it  is  equally  positive  proof  that  Sun- 
day was  not  then  a  ^'Sabbath.'' 

Second!}/;  I  shall  establish  that  Saturday  alone  is  the  Sab- 
bath recognized  in  the  New  Testament. 

1.  It  is  unquestioned  that,  during  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  the 
only  day  characterized  by  that  name  is  'May  the  seventh'^  of 
the  week.  (Matf.  xii.  2 ;  3faj'k  iii.  2  ;  vi.  2 ;  Lu/ce  iv.  16 ; 
xiii.  10,  14;  Joh7i  v.  10,  16;  ix.  14,  16,  &c.) 

2.  A/te?'  the  crucifixion  (indeed,  on  the  very  day  following 
that  event — Saturday),  we  read  that  the  disciples  '^ rested 
the  Sabbath  day,  according  to  the  co7nma7idni€nt."  (Luke 
xxiii.  56.)  A  satisfactory  proof,  as  my  friend  J.  N.  B.  has 
justly  remarked,  "that  up  to  that  time  the  Saturday  Sabbath 
was  held  sacred  by  Christ's  disciples."  (p.  183.)  I  thank  him 
for  this  frank  avowal  (demanded  alike  by  his  intelligence  and 
his  candor)  that  it  was  "  Saturdaij"  which  was  observed  "  ac- 
cording to  the  commandment. '' 

3.  The  next  mention  we  find  of  the  Sabbath  is  in  Acts  xiii. 
14,  after  an  interval  of  more  than  ten  years  from  the  preceding 
instance,  a  lapse  of  time  fully  adequate  to  the  complete  estab- 
lishment and  universal  recognition  of  a  new  Sabbath,  had  any 
such  been  contemplated;  but,  as  we  have  seen,  none  such  ivas 
knmcn!  If  any  one  could  be  artless  enough  to  question 
whether  the  day  mentioned  in  this  text  was  Saturday,  the  cir- 
cumstance of  the  open  synagogue  will  establish,  above  all  con- 
troversy, that  "  the  Sabbath  day"  here  noticed  could  have  been 
no  other  than  ''  the  seventh  day." 

4.  Overlooking  the  week  immediately  succeeding  to  this 
(verse  44),  the  next  mention  of  the  Sabbath  is  in  Acts  xv.  21, 
seven  years  later.  On  this  occasion  the  liberal-minded  bishop 
of  the  Jerusalem  church,  in  warmly  advocating  before  the 
general  council  there  assembled  the  exemption  of  Gentile  be- 
lievers from  the  observance  of  the  Mosaic  institutions  (see  ante, 

22 


254  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Acts  xvi.  xvii.,  &c. — Col.  ii.  No  other  Sa'bbath  in  the  New  Testament. 

p.  139),  urged  upon  the  over  "  zealous"  Jewish  brethren  (Acts 
xxi.  20)  the  consideration  that  "  Moses  of  old  time  hath  in 
every  city  them  that  preach  him,  being  read  in  the  synagogues 
everi/  Sahhath  day.^^  Here,  as  before,  the  open  synagogue 
isettles  beyond  all  possibility  of  doubt  that  Saturday  alone  was 
designated. 

5.  Without  quoting  in  detail  all  the  subsequent  passages 
referring  to  "  the  Sabbath  day,"  it  is  sufficient  to  state  that,  in 
every  instance  in  which  the  phrase  is  used,  throughout  the 
apostolic  history  (^AcU  xvi.  13;  xvii.  2;  xviii.  4,*  &c.),  bring- 
ing us  down  to  a  period  of  thirty  years  after  the  crucifixion, 
its  invariable  and  indisputable  application  is  to  "the  seventh 
day." 

6.  In  the  Epistles,  we  meet  with  the  term  but  once  (Co?,  ii. 
16);  and  here,  as  ever,  in  defiance  of  the  shifts  of  quibblers, 
it  is  still  the  day  observed  "  according  to  the  commandment^' 
the  day  HaShibingij  that  alone  is  designated ;  though,  if  J, 
N.  B.  wishes  to  apply  this  text  to  Sunday,  he  is  welcome  to  it. 

The  result  of  our  examination  is,  that  in  no  single  instance, 
throughout  the  New  Testament j  is  the  title  "Sahhath"  applied 
to  any  other  day  than  Saturday  1  (q.  E.  D.)  In  every  case, 
let  it  be  remarked,  moreover,  the  designation  is  "the  Sabbath 
^ay" — a  day  too  notorious  to  be  mistaken,  too  definite  to  be 
described; — a  day  excluding  all  possible  rivalry,  and  scorning 
all  possible  perversion.  He,  therefore,  who  tells  me  of  a  "first 
day"  Sabbath,  tells  me  of  that  of  which  the  Scriptures  hnoiu 
nothing  !  His  wisdom  is  not  that  which  is  from  above,  but 
after  man^s  wisdom ;  it  is  drawn  from  the  "  broken  cistern," 
and  not  from  the  "  living  fountain. "f     The  triumph  of  the 


-'^  The  simple  expressions:  *'Paiil,  as  his  manner  loas,  went  in  unto 
them  on  three  Sabbath  days,"  &c. ;  "  he  reasoned — every  Sabbath,"  &c. ; 
in  themselves  furnish  the  clearest  evidence  that  no  other  day  of  the 
week  could  have  been  at  that  time  similarly  distinguished. 

f  "  If  conscience  is  not  true  to  the  Law  of  God,  it  is  no  better  than 
a  false  chronometer."     J.  N.  B.     (p.  19.) 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        255 

The  '"First  Proposition"  fully  established.  Christianity  ■without  a  Sabbath! 

consistent  Roman  Catholic,  over  all  observers  of  Sunday  call- 
ing themselves  Protestants,  is  indeed  complete  and  unanswer- 
able !* 

I  submit  to  every  intelligent,  impartial  reader,  that  my 
"First  Proposition"  is  established  beyond  all  reasonable 
ground  of  objection  or  escape :  "  There  is  one,  and  only  one, 
weekly  Sabbath  enjoined,  described,  or  in  the  remotest  manner 
alluded  to,  in  the  whole  Bible,  whether  Hebrew  or  Christian, — 
the  Saturday  Sabbath,"  the  seventh  day  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment. And  I  claim  with  confidence  the  unreserved  benefifc 
of  my  friend's  concession,  that  "all  the  other  five  Propo- 
sitions live  icith  it!''  (/;.  182.) 

So,  then,  we  are  to  believe  that  the  Christianity  of  the  Bible 
has  iw  Sahhath  day  I  That  honored  institution,  which  has 
been  so  zealously  defended  and  so  eloquently  vaunted  from  a 
thousand  pulpits — which,  handed  down  through  successive 
generations,  has  demanded  and  obtained  a  submissive  and  un- 
questioning observance — which  has  been  so  prominently  incul- 
cated in  the  pious  trainings  of  infancy,  and  perhaps,  imbibed 
from  the  fervent  lips  of  maternal  aiFection,  has  become  indeli- 
bly associated  with  the  earliest  and  strongest  impressions  of 
habit,  of  conscience,  and  of  duty — which  has  revived,  with  its 
ever-recurring  peiiod  of  religious  inspirations,  the  toil-worn 
spirit  of  the  faithful  living,  or  cheered  with  its  clustering 
memories  the  pillow  of  the  hopeful  dying — and  which,  gather- 
ing around  its  shechinah  the  force  of  a  thousand  devotional 
impulses,  has  animated  its  votaries  with  a  confidence  implicit 
and  intolerant^  while  its  violation  has  inspired  a  sentiment  of 
horror,  has  been  accounted  the  synonyme  of  "'  ungodliness" 
and  "  profanity,"  has  been  held  up  to  the  unruly  school-boy 

*  It  should  present  a  subject  of  very  grave  reflection  to  Christians 
of  the  "reformed"  and  "evangelical"  denominations,  to  find  that  no 
single  argument  or  suggestion  can  be  offered  in  favor  of  Sunday  ob- 
servance, that  will  not  apply  with  equal  force  and  to  its  fullest  extent 
in  sustaining  the  various  other  "holy  days"  appointed  by  "  the  Church." 


256  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Awful  "  Judgments"  against  Sabbath-breaJcers ! 

as  a  warning  monument  of  an  avenging  Providence* — that 
''  glorious"  institution  which,  in  short,  has  been  esteemed,  in 
the  language  of  a  distinguished  apologist,f  "  the  Sun  of  the 
moral  universe  F'  and  which  my  friend  claims  as  '^a  legacy 
from  the  risen  Lord,"  "  the  bright  link  of  man  with  man  and 
earth  with  heaven,  the  safeguard  of  virtue,  the  glory  of  reli- 

*  Ezemplce  gratia:  A  popular  juvenile  "Sabbath  Manual,"  pub- 
lished by  the  "American  Tract  Society,"  contains  such  arguments  as 
the  following:  "Another  man  in  the  same  State,  who  had  spent  the 
Sabbath  in  getting  in  his  grain,  said  that  he  had  fairly  cheated  the 
Almighty  out  of  one  day.  On  Tuesday,  the  lightning  struck  his  barn ! 
He  gained  nothing  valuable  by  working  on  the  Sabbath."  {page  74.) 
Item:  "Another  man  .  .  .  spent  the  day  in  gathering  his  grain,  and 
putting  it  into  a  vacant  building  near  his  field.  But  the  lightning 
struck  the  building!  and,  with  the  grain,  it  was  burnt  to  ashes." 
{page  75.)  Item:  "  But  another  man  thought  he  had  succeeded  better. 
...  He  had  worked  on  the  Sabbath  all  the  year,  and  had  thus  gained 
more  than  fifty  days.  But  that  very  day  the  lightning  struck  his  barn ! 
and  his  Sabbath  day  gains  and  his  weekday  gains  were  burnt  together." 
{page  82.)  Item :  "A  number  of  men  at  one  time  had  mowed  a  large 
quantity  of  hay.  For  a  number  of  days  it  had  been  rainy.  The  Sab- 
bath came,  and  was  a  remarkably  pleasant  day.  One  man  stayed  at 
home,  opened  his  hay,  took  care  of  it,  and  in  the  afternoon  got  it  into 
his  barn."  ...  A  week  afterward,  a  cloud  arose,  "and  moved  on  to- 
ward the  barn  into  which  on  the  previous  Sabbath  the  man  had  put  his 
hay.  The  lightning  darted  here  and  there,  and  by  and  by  went  down 
into  the  barn !  .  .  His  neighbors'  barns  on  each  side  were  so  near  that 
it  seemed  impossible  to  prevent  them  from  being  burned.  But  .  . 
neither  of  them  took  fire,  and  the  Sabbath-breaker's  barn  was  burnt 
out  between  them."  (joa^es  239,  240.)  Item:  "A  man  in  the  State 
of  New  York  was  accustomed  to  work  on  the  Sabbath.  .  .  While  in  his 
field  upon  the  Sabbath,  treading  down  hay  upon  the  stack,  the  light- 
ning struck  him!  and  he  was  a  corpse."  {page  243,  &c.  &c.)  Nur- 
sery Tales  9  by  the  Keverend  Justin  Edwards,  Doctor  or  Divinity. 

Of  all  the  ten  commands,  the  fourth  appears  to  be  the  only  one  guarded 
by  the  retributive  thunderbolt ;  and  even  here  the  lightning  makes  the 
strange  mistake  of  miraculously  protecting  the  wrong  day! — the  day 
not  "nominated  in  the  bond  !" 

f  Dr.  Beecheb,  of  Boston. 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.  257 

Carnal  Sabbatarianism  incompatilile  with  a  spiritual  "  Sabbatism." 

gion,  tlie  pillar  and  prop  of  society,  the  palladium  of  nations, 
the  ^  pearl  of  days/  the  blessing  of  this  world  and  the  beacon- 
light  of  that  which  is  to  come" — that  priceless  institution  is 
declared  a  vain  chimera ! — but  a  human  fiction  !* — but  as  the 
baseless  fabric  of  a  vision,  and  insubstantial  pageant  faded — 
as  a  superstitious  dream  when  one  awaketh ! 

Even  so  !  But  rarely,  in  the  close-paged  history  of  human 
error,  has  so  haughty  a  construction  towered  above  so  slender 
a  foundation,  as  in  the  development  of  what  is  called  "  the 
Lord's  day,  or  the  Christian  Sahhath  /"  However  pious  and 
devoted  its  advocates,  however  '^  fervent  in  spirit"  or  "  diligent 
in  teaching,"  they  require  to  have  ''  the  way  of  Grod  more  per- 
fectly expounded  unto  them"  (^Heh.  v.  12,  14);  for  their 
*'  zeal  of  God  is  not  according  to  hnowledger  ''Desiring  to 
be  teachers  of  '  the  Law^  they  understand  neither  what  they 
say,  nor  whereof  they  affirm."  "  Their  minds  are  blinded ;  for 
until  this  day  remaineth  the  veil  untaken  away  in  the  reading 
of  the  old  testament ;"  so  that  ''  they  cannot  steadfastly  look 
to  the  end  of  that  which  is  abolished."  They  have  not  fully 
entered  into  that  true  Sabbatism  which  ''remaineth  to  the 
people  of  G  od :"  "  neither  can  they  know  it,  because  it  is  spi- 
ritually discerned !"  "  What  if  some  do  not  believe  ?  Shall 
their  unbelief  make  the  faith  of  God  without  effect  ?  God  for- 
bid !" 

"7/ere  is  the  Sahhath F^  exclaims  my  friend,  with  earnest 
apostrophe,  {p.  173.)  "Look  at  it.  The  seal  of  the  world's 
Creator — of  your  Creator  and  of  mine — is  upon  it.f     Efface  it 

*  "If  the  Sabbath  be  no  part  of  the  Law  of  Gorl,  let  it  perish!" 
J.  N.  B.   {iJ.  55.) 

I  How  comes  it  that  J.  N.  B.  has  been  so  bold  as  to  "  efface"  the 
"  seal  of  the  world's  Creator"  by  an  utter  neglect  of  that  day  which 
alone  can  be  the  seal?  "riemember  the  Sabbath  day  !" — Yovi  Ila- 
Shibingi; — the  day  in  which  the  Creator  rested!  "The  first  day" 
never  was,  and  never  can  be,  day  Ila-Shibingi !  And  071  it  the  Ci'eator 
did  not  rest!    [Gen.  i.  1 — 5.) 

22* 


258  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  "express  declarations"  of  Jesus — Anti-saHbatarian. 

if  you  can  !  Attempt  it  if  you  dare  !''  Efface  it,  I  cannot, 
for  it  is  already  done.  It  was  most  effectually  accomplished 
nearly  two  thousand  years  ago  !  Attempt  it,  therefore,  I  shall 
not;  for  "  so  fight  I — ^not  as  one  that  beateth  the  air  I''  This 
^'  seal  of  the  world's  Creator'^  has  heen  cancelled  {Isai.  Ixv.  17; 
Heb.  iv.  4,  5;  Col.  ii.  14);  the  covenant  it  certified  has  ex- 
pired by  limitation.  {Exod.  xxxi.  17;  2  Cor.  iii.  7,  8;  Heb. 
viii.  6 — 13.)  No  fragment  of  a  codicil  or  schedule  has  been 
left  to  give  my  friend  his  "legacy.'^  (^Gal.  v.  3.)  If  he  will 
not  accept  under  the  laU  ^^  testament,^'  he  is  absolutely  dishe- 
rited !  He  can  take  nothing  from  the  former  one.  I  ^'  dis- 
pute his  title  to  the  inheritance."  {p.  179.) 

'^  Tell  me  not,'^  says  ho,  ^'  that  Jesus  Christ  has  come  from 
Heaven  to  abrogate  this  Law — in  the  face  of  his  own  express 
declarations  to  the  contrary  !"  {p.  173.)  Tell  me  not  tlwu  ^^of 
his  own  express  declarations  to  the  contrary,"  when  they  can- 
not be  found  !* — when  they  do  not  exist !  "  He  that  hath  my 
word,  let  him  speak  my  word  faithfully.  .  .  .  Behold  I  am 
against  the  prophets,  saith  the  Lord,  that  use  their  tongues, 
and  say,  '  He  saith  !'  "  Tell  me  not  of  "  His  fidthful  exposi- 
tion, His  noble  vindication,  His  constant  application^^  of  the 
Sabbath  law  !  "  Yea,  hath  God  said  ?"  Where  is  it  written? 
"  Chapter  and  verse''  for  that !  Dare  not  to  tell  me  that  the 
tenor  of  his  whole  obedient  life  "  was  to  honor  it  as  immuta- 
hW  {p.  173)  ^'  in  the  face  of  his  express  declaration"  (when 
condemned  by  the  Sabbath-keepers  of  olden  time),  "i%  Father 
worketh  hitherto,  AND  /work  !"  (John  v.  8 — 17);  and  in  the 
face  of  that  other  "  noble  vindication"  of  his  authority,  when 
charged  with  disregarding  the  fourth  commandment,  "  The 
Son  of  man  is  Lord  even  of  the  Sahhath-day  !"  {^Maft.  xii.  1 
— 8.)     Dare  not  to  say  that  "all  this  was  to  honor  it  as  im- 

*  It  is  unnecessary  to  notice  here  a  weak  attempt  made  by  J.  N.  B. 
in  his  former  E-eply  [p.  58)  to  construct  a  prop  for  the  Sabbath  out  of 
Matt.  V.  17,  18 ;  for  the  sophism  can  hardly  mislead  any  one.  The 
subject  will,  howeyer,  be  more  properly  considered  presently. 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        259 

A  gross  equivocation.  Iluman  authority  insufficient. 

Qjiiitahle!"  Think  you  he  could  prove  his  observance  of  the 
Sabbath  by  chiiming  to  be  its  Master  ?  or  that  he  could  be 
"Lord''  of  his  "immutable"  ruler?  Think  you  he  could  ex- 
hibit his  authority  over  the  law  by  "  obedience"  to  the  law  ?  or 
that,  as  "  Lord  of  the  Sabbath/'  he  could  be  in  londage  to  the 
Sabbath  1^^  It  seems  beneath  the  dignity  of  honest  controversy 
to  reply  to  such  equivocation.  Nothing  less  desperate  than 
Sabbatarianism  could  tolerate  absurdities  so  palpable.  Search 
the  Scriptures!  ^^  They  are  they  which  testify  of  Me!" 
What  is  the  chaff  to  the  wheat?  saith  the  Lord. 

"  Whatever  be  true  in  other  countries  and  times,"  urges  my 
friend,  "  human  authority^  neither  legal  nor  ecclesiastical,  will 
satisfy  free-born  Americans.  No  man's  conscience  will  be 
bound  here  by  anything  short  of  Divine  authority — real  or  sup- 
posed." {p.  180.)     The  consideration  suggested  in  this  para- 

^''  "As  he  is  'Lord  of  the  Sabbath,'-hG  has  a  power  of  dispensing 
■with  it,  and  even  of  abolishing  it."  Dk.  Gill  {^Commentary  on  Matt. 
xii.  8). 

"  This  is  Tery  much,"  says  J.  N.  B.  {p.  IGO),  "  as  if  one  should  infer 
from  the  words  of  Jehovah  to  Moses,  '  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  .Jacob,'  merely  that  as  their  God,  he  had  the  right  to  anni- 
hilate them  at  will."  It  seems  that  my  friend  is  satisfied  with  a  false 
analogy,  if  a  true  one  will  not  suit.  The  circumstances  of  a  declaration 
(whether  as  restrictive  or  extensive)  are  accordingly  considered  too 
unimportant  to  be  taken  into  the  account.  Now  had  this  declaration 
of  Jehovah  to  Moses,  instead  of  being  delivered  confirmatorily  (as  a 
pledge  of  continued  providence),  been  mside peremptorily,  in  answer  to 
the  question  "Why  hast  thon  utterly  destroyed  the  Patriarchs?"  my 
friend's  analogy  would  be  perfectly  just,  and  his  inference  unexcep- 
tionable, "that  as  their  God,  he  had  the  right  to  annihilate  them  at 
will !"  So  when  in  answer  to  the  question  "  why  do  they  on  the  Sab- 
bath day  that  ivhich  is  not  lauful?"  ( Mark  il  24),  Jesus  declared  that 
he  was  "Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath;"  every  child  would  know  that  this 
reply  could  not  possibly  mean  to  extend  the  obligation  of  the  law  ! 
"  How  forcible  are  right  words!"  said  honest  Job;  "but  what  doth 
your  arguing  reprove?" — "If  any  man  speak,  let  him  speak  as  the 
oracles  of  God.'" 


260  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

A  divine  law — "  real — or  su]^j)osed !"  A  holy  life  recttiired, — not  a  holy  day. 

graph,  throws  even  my  friend's  former  d  priori  argument  com- 
pletely in  the  shade.  Behold  the  last  retreat  of  Sabbatarian 
desperation !  An  absolute  Theocracy  alone  "  will  satisfy  free- 
born  Americans  V  for,  since  J.  N.  B.  considers  all  the  argu- 
ments addressed  to  their  reason  or  their  sense  of  a  common  in- 
terest, in  favor  of  a  sacred  day  of  rest,  avowedly  weak  and  fal- 
lacious C^a  weekly  Sabbath  being  not  of  itself  obvious"),  the 
institution  can  have  nothing  whatever  to  sustain  it  but  a  posi- 
tive and  arbitrary  enactment.  If  there  is  any  force  or  meaning 
in  the  above  paragraph,  it  conducts  us  to  this  :  though  the 
New  Testament  should  not  enjoin  or  encourage  a  ^'  Christian 
Sabbath,''  we  must  ^^  shun  to  declare  all  its  counsel;"  for  no- 
thing will  answer  to  bind  the  conscience  here  '^  short  of  Divine 
authority — real  or  supposed  !"  An  intimation  certainly 
much  more  creditable  to  my  friend's  candor  than  to  his  cau- 
tion ]  and  I  will  add,  much  more  illustrative  of  his  zeal  than 
of  his  orthodoxy.  That  the  conscience  must  be  bound  "in  re- 
spect of  an  holy  day,''  he  assumes  as  being  too  clear  for  proof. 
Ml/  great  object  is  to  satisfy  the  enlightened  conscience  that 
it  should  not  be  held  in  subjection  to  the  "observance  of  days ;" 
and  to  show,  by  the  uniform  and  consistent  tenor  of  all  Scrip- 
ture, that  "  the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath"  never  ordained  a  holy 
day,  but  ever  required  a  holy  life  !  that,  under  the  perfect  law 
of  Christian  liberty,  every  day  is  alike  "the  Lord's  day:" 
and  none  arc  "  common  or  unclean."  The  hour  cometh,  when 
neither  in  the  mountain,  nor  yet  in  your  Jerusalem  tonple 
shall  the  Father  be  worshipped  :  but  when  "the  true  worship- 
pers shall  worship  Him  in  spirit  and  in  truth :  for  the  Father 
seeketh  such  to  worship  liira."*  And  my  unremitting  and 
nnmisgiving  labor  shall  be  (to  the  utmost  of  my  ability)  to 

■5^  "  The  time  once  hath  been,  when  the  Sabbath  was  not  holy  day. 
And  the  time  shall  come,  wlicn  to  all  true  and  Godly  men,  every  day 
shall  be  like  holy.''''     Eeasmus.     [Paraphrase  in  3Iark  ii.) 

"To  contend,"  says  Milton,  "that  what  under  the  ncAV  dispensa- 
tion ought  to  be  our  daily  employment,  has  been  enjoined  as  the  busi- 
ness of  the  Sabbnth  exclusiTely,  is  to  disparage  the  gospel  worship, 


MR.  TAYLOR  S  THIRD  REPLY.  261 

The  Gospel  standard.  Au  extract  from  Neander. 

convince  all  who  affect  a  gospel  standard ,  that,  like  "  the  in- 
spired Apostle/'  they  should  "give  place  by  subjection — no, 
not  for  au  liour,'^  to  those  who  would  bring  their  conscience 
into  bondage.  I  would  conjure  them  by  every  regard  for 
honest  construction  of  language,  by  every  sentiment  of  venera- 
tion for  Bible  authority,  to  "be  strong  in  the  faith;  not  giving 
heed  to  Jewish  fables,  and  commandments  of  men  that  turn 
from  the  truth.'' 

Although  the  space  may  not  with  propriety  be  spared,  I 
cannot  resist  the  temptation  of  here  placing  in  juxtaposition 
with  the  declaration  that  "  human  authority  will  not  satisfy," 
and  as  an  appropriate  commentary  on  it,  a  passage  from  one 
of  the  most  profound  and  venerated  of  modern  theologists  : — 
need  I  name  the  learned  Neander  ? 

^'St.  Paul  expressly  declares  all  sanctifying  of  certain  seasons, 
as  far  as  men  deduced  this  from  the  Divine  command,  to  be 
Jewish  and  unevangelical,  and  to  be  like  returning  to  the 
slavery  of  the  law,  and  to  captivity  to  outward  precepts.  Such 
was  the  opinion  of  the  early  Church.  At  first  the  Churches 
assembled  daily  for  prayer  in  common,  and  for  the  public  con- 
sideration of  the  Divine  word,  and  the  common  celebration  of 

the  Lord's  supper  and  the  agapoi Just  as  the 

unevangelic  made  its  appearance,  when  men  supposed  the  ex- 
istence of  a  separate  caste  of  priests  in  the  Church,  which  stood 
upon  Divine  right — when  they  forgot  the  common  Christian 
priesthood  in  the  consideration  of  this  peculiar  caste  of  priests, 
and  when  they  introduced  a  contrast  between  secular  and 
spiritual  persons  among  Christians, — so  also  in  this  matter,  the 
unevangelic  appeared,  when  men  supposed  certain  dai/s  distin- 
guished from  others  and  hallowed  by  Divine  right — and  when 
they  introduced  a  distinction  between  holy  and  common  days 
into  the  life  of  the  Christian,  and  in  this  distinction  forgot  his 
calling  to  sanctify  all  days  alike.  The  confusion  between  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testament  notions  manifested  itself  here  in 
the  same  manner,  and  at  the  same  time,  as  that  which  relates 

to  the  priesthood The  festival  of  Sunday,  like  all 

other  festivals,  was  always  only  a  human  ordinance ;  and  it  was 

find  to  frustrate  rather  than  enforce  the  commandments  of  God." 
[Christ.  Doctrine,  Book  ii.  chap.  7.) 


262  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Learned  authority — against  the  Sabbath. 

far  from  the  intention  of  tlie  Apostles  to  establish  a  Divine 
command  in  this  respect,  far  from  them  and  from  the  early 
apostolic  Church  to  transfer  the  laws  of  the  Sabhath  to  Sun- 
day. Perhaps  at  the  end  of  the  second  century,  a  false  appli- 
cation of  this  kind  had  begun  to  take  place,  for  men  appear 
by  that  time  to  have  considered  laboring  on  Sunday  as  a  sin." 
(History  of  the  Christian  Religion  and  Church,  vol.  i.  sec.  iii. 
2/^0.") 

J.  N.  B.  informs  us  that  ^^  Human  opinions  really  decide 
nothing  here.  Names  equally  illustrious,  if  not  more 
numerous,  are  found  arrayed  on  the  other  side — that  is,  in 
favor  of  the  moral  and  perpetual  obligation  of  the  Sabbath." 
{p.  190.)  Where  shall  they  be  found  ?  Will  my  friend  ob- 
tain countenance  for  his  ^'tradition  of  the  elders,"  in  the  ear- 
liest commentators — the  immediate  successors  of  the  apostles — 
the  "Fathers"  of  the  Christian  church?  Almost  unanimously 
do  they  support  my  side  of  the  question,  and,  like  "the  in- 
spired Apostle,"  utterly  repudiate  the  Sahhath!  Will  he 
refer  to  those  who  in  later  centuries,  casting  off  the  trammels 
of  a  long  accumulating  growth  of  legendary  observance  (the 
fungi  of  human  culture),  and  caring  naught  that  these  ob- 
servances had  received  the  sanction  of  ages  of  acquiescence 
from  the  wise  and  good,  dared  battle  for  what  they  esteemed 
the  Truth — "whether  she  carried  the  balm  of  life,  or  the 
weapon  of  death" — will  he  turn  to  iliG  fathers  of  Protestantism? 
Where  shall  he  find  "  names  equally  illustrious"  with  those  of 
a  Luther,  a  Melancthon,  a  Cranmer,  a  Tyndale,  a  Calvin? — 
all  of  whom  explicitly  or  virtually  denij  the  obligation  of  the 
fourth  commandment?  Or  even  descending  to  more  recent 
times,  and  searching  among  the  names  which  have  earned  the 
most  enduring  reputation  for  critical  research  and  Biblical 
scholarship,  how  many  will  he  find  to  maintain  with  him  "the 
moral  and  perpetual  obligation  of  the  Sabbath  ?"*  In  weight 
of  character  at  least,  I  fearlessly  may  challenge  a  comparison. 

*  "  The  dogma  that  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  is  part  of  the 
moral  laiv  is  to  me  utterly  imintelligible."     Whately. 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        263 

Literal  applications  of  Scripture — against  it. 

But  '^  human  opinions''  do  not  really  ^'  decide^'  the  question ! 
And  who — (unless  my  friend) — ever  imagined  that  human 
opinions  could  decide  it  ?  The  few  authorities  /  at  least  have 
adduced  have  been  summoned  as  my  witnesses; — not  appealed 
to  as  my  judges.  Our  cause  can  submit  to  but  one  arbiter. 
Our  only  controversy  is  ^'The  ScriptuRxYL  authority  of  the  Sab- 
bath.^^  J^  human  authority,  I  shall  not  interrogate.*  If  in 
the  interpretation  of  our  mutual  Law  both  parties  can  present 
"names  equally  illustrious"  in  corroboration  of  our  respective 
views,  then  is  the  contest  thrown  back  and  confined  to  the 
naked  statute;  and  he  who  brings  the  greatest  weight  of  rele- 
vant quotation — he  who  most  asserts  and  insists  upon  the 
literal  reading  of  the  text — he  who  finds  the  least  necessity  for 
paraphrase,  explanation,  limitation,  or  addition — he  whose  ap- 
plications, in  short,  are  most  pertinent,  most  explicit,  most  con- 
sistent with  themselves  and  all  others — must  in  fairness  be 
adjudged  the  victor.  This  issue  is  with  the  discriminating 
reader : — I  shrink  not  from  the  verdict. 

I  cordially  agree  with  J.  N.  B.  iii  entertaining  but  little  re- 
spect for  that  human  exposition  which  evades  or  impinges  upon 
the  teachings  it  professes  to  elucidate ;  which  "  walks  in 
craftiness,  and  handles  the  word  of  God  deceitfully.''  I  know 
full  well  that  even  "  great  men  are  not  always  wise,  neither  do 
the  aged  always  understand  judgment.  Therefore  I  said, 
hearken  to  me ;  I  also  will  shew  mine  opinion." 

Says  J.  N.  B. :  "  My  friend  has  chosen  on  this  point  [the 
reference  to  human  authorities]  the  ungracious  task  of  Ham 
to  Noah."  (p.  192.)  Now,  however  unspeakable  the  ofi"ence 
of  the  reprobate  son,  I  think  that  the  impartial  justice  of  a 
healthy  morality  will  hardly  exculpate  the  pranks  of  the  some- 
what fantastic  patriarch.  If  it  was  beyond  measure  wicked  to 
see  his  exposure,  it  was  in  some  measure  improper  to  make  the 
exposure.    To  apply  this  ancient  lesson,  if  I  "  have  chosen  the 

*  Sec  Note  D,  at  the  end  of  this  Reply. 


264  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

An  "  ungracious  task."  Sabbatarian  nalechicss  exposed. 

ungracious  task"  of  discovering  the  nudity  of  venerable  error, 
and,  to  aggravate  the  impiety  of  this  surprisal,  have  profanely 
"told  the  brethren  without,'^  the  'primary  rebuke  must  fall 
upon  the  "  fathers"  in  Israel,  who  have  ventured  out  loifJwut 
their  proper  garments  ! — not  "  having  their  loins  girt  about 
with  Truth!"  If  anti-evangelical  "views  of  the  ten  com- 
mandments, or  some  of  them  at  least,  have  been  embraced  and 
propagated  by  Ministers  of  the  Gospel"  (p.  192),  let  these  pa- 
triarchs be  not  utterly  astonished  to  find  their  nakedness  dis- 
played by  some  unfilial  Ham.  Let  them  not,  with  false, 
unhonored  dignity,  retort:  "Thou  wast  altogether  born  in 
sins,  and  dost  thou  teach  us^"  Let  them,  with  prudent  heart, 
incline  their  ear  unto  instruction,  however  humble  or  unworthy 
its  source ;  studious  rather  of  the  good  grace  with  which  ad- 
vice may  be  received,  than  of  the  "  bad  grace"  with  which  it 
may  be  proffered.  "  Rebuke  a  wise  man,  and  he  will  love 
thee,  and  will  be  yet  wiser." 

Unlike  Ham,  however,  I  would  arouse  our  spiritual  "  Fa- 
thers" from  their  lethargic  "orthodoxy,"  solely  that  they  may 
be  fully  conscious  of  their  uncovered  situation.  Unlike  Ham, 
I  urgently  tender  them  the  garment  adapted  to  remove  their 
reproach  of  Sabbatarian  nakedness.  Here  are  the  "  Six 
Propositions,"  diligently  woven  from  the  Scriptures.  Awake, 
ye  slumbering  Noahs,  from  your  traditionary  bondage  and 
bewitchment  !*  "  Take  unto  you  the  wJiole  armor  of  God, 
that  ye  may  be  able  to  stand ;"  and  that  ye  may  wield  with 
the  power  of  consistency  "  the  sword  of  the  Spirit,  which  is 
the  Word  of  God." 

"  My  friend,  indeed,"  says  J.  N.  B.,  "as  if  this  were  not  a 
practical  question,  where  every  man,  woman,  and  child  must 
necessarily  take  a  side,  would  waive  all  regard  to  consequences. 
He  can  give  up  the  Sabbath  as  coolly  as  the  false  mother  of 
old  consented  to  the  division  of  the  living  child.     To  him, 

*  Fphesians  v.  14.     Galaiians  ill.  1,  2. 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.  265 

The  dead  child — surrendered.  Ishmael,  and  Isaac.  The  Law,  and  the  Gospel. 

Truth  is  Truth,  alike  whether  she  carries  the  balm  of  life,  or 
the  weajDon  of  death/^  (p.  181.) 

Indulging  the  modest  hope  that  this  encomium  may  not  be 
undeserved,  I  would  remark  that  the  previous  flattering  figure  is 
not  well  chosen.  The  "child"  is  the  dead  one  ! — stark  cold  !  It 
will  not  require  a  Solomon  to  decide  our  controversy.  So  far  from 
"  consenting  to  the  division'^  of  the  child  in  dispute,  I  cheer- 
fully resign  the  whole  corpse  into  my  friend's  awaiting  arms — 
cerements  and  all !  Alas  !  however  his  mistaken  affection  may 
for  a  while  beguile  him,  his  kindest  nursing  can  never  restore 
it.  The  outcast  son  of  Hagar  cannot  be  heir  with  the  living 
son  of  Sarah.  "Truth  is  truth T'  whether  she  herald  life  or 
death. 

"  Wherefore,  my  brethren,  ye  also  are  become  dead  to  '  the 
Law,'  by  the  body  of  Christ;''  being  "  buried  with  him  by 
baptism  into  death,"  "wherein,  also,  ye  are  risen  with  him 
through  faith,"  that  ye  "  should  serve  in  newness  of  spirit,  and 
not  in  the  oldness  of  the  letter,'^  which  was  but  "  a  shadow  of 
things  to  come,  whose  body  is  of  Christ."  "  Now,  after  that  ye 
have  known  God,  or  rather  are  known  of  Grod,  how  turn  ye 
again  to  the  weak  and  beggarly  elements,  whereunto  ye  desire 
again  to  be  in  bondage  ?"  "  Know  ye  not,  that  to  whom  ye 
yield  yourselves  servants  to  obey,  his  servants  ye  are  to  whom 
ye  obey  ?"  "  Ye  are  not  come  unto  the  Mount  that  might  be 
touched,  and  that  burned  with  fire ;  nor  unto  blackness,  and 
darkness,  and  tempest,  and  the  sound  of  a  trumpet,  and  the 
voice  of  words;"  "but  ye  are  come  unto  Mount  Sion,  and 
unto  the  city  of  the  living  God,  the  heavenly  Jerusalem." 
"  Ye  are  not  under  ^  the  Law,'  but  under  Grace."  "  Stand 
fast,  therefore,  in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  you 
free,  and  be  not  entangled  again  with  the  yoke  of  bondage." 

My  friend,  in  trusting  to  the  works  of  the  ministration  upon 

stones,   instead  of  exclusively  "looking  unto  Jesus  as  the 

author  and /?Hs/ier  of  the  Faith,"  and  "the  mediator  of  a 

better  covenant"  than  that  of  Horeb,  has  "  stumbled  at  that 

23 


266  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  wrong  "  breastplate."  Jurisdiction  of  the  Decalogue. 

stumbling-stone;"  choosing  for  his  breastplate  ^'the  righteous- 
ness which  is  in  'the  Law/  blameless/^  rather  than  ''the 
righteousness  which  is  of  Faith."  (Eom.  ix.  30,  32.)  "In 
the  name  of  Truth  and  Honesty,"  says  he  (p.  172),  "I  have 
a  demand  to  make  on  W.  B.  T.,  and  on  all,  of  his  opinions. 
Come  out  clearly,  and  show  your  colors.  [?]  What  do  you 
mean  to  do  luitli  the  Decalogue?  Not  a  trace  of  anything 
local,  temporary,  ceremonial,  or  shadowy,*  is  in  it.  Every- 
thing is  absolute,  universal,  perpetual  Lawf — the  Legislation 
of  the  Infinite  Creator  for  men,  His  creatures.  As  such,  it  is 
distinctly  recognized  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles. "J 

Under  the  protection  of  a  rigid  logic,  I  might  reply  that  the 
Decalogue  is  not  the  subject  of  our  Discussion.  I  might  insist 
that  we  are  at  present  engaged  with  but  one  of  its  require- 
ments, and  that  one  the  only  positive,  ceremonial,  and  typical 

^-  When  the  Sabbath  rest  is  entitled  "  the  beacon  light  of  that  which 
is  to  come"  [p.  61),  an  unsophisticated  reader  might  suppose  that  there 
was  ''a  trace"  of  something  ^^ shadou'if  in  the  Decalogue.  My  friend 
admits  that  the  Sabbath  was  symbolical  [Ileb.  iv.  3,  4,  9),  but  does  not 
like  to  grant  that  it  was  '<a  shadow."  {Col.  ii.  17.)  And  yet,  holding 
the  fourth  commandment  to  be  an  ^^ absolute,  universal, perpetualLsi-w,'' 
he  is  living  in  the  constant  violation  of  that  law !  He  has  probably  never 
obeyed  the  plain  and  unmistakable  requirement  of  that  law,  to  sanctify 
the  day  Ha-Shibingi!  "Remember  the  Sabbath  day,  to  keep  it  holy!" 
"Whosoever  shall  offend  in  one  point,  he  is  guilty  of  all!"  My  friend 
remembers  only  a  Sabbath : — he  has  entirely  forgotten  "  the  day,''^  a  day 
definite  beyond  the  hope  of  escape,  or  the  reach  of  evasion.  I  echo  the 
question:  "What  do  you  mean  to  do  with  the  Decalogue?"  (See  1 
Kings  xii.  33  ;  2  Kings  v.  12 ;  Dan.  vii.  25.) 

f  "Everything  in  the  Decalogue  is  not  obligatory  to  Christians, — is 
not  a  portion  of  the  moral  or  natm-al  law."  Jerebiy  Taylor.  [Duct. 
Dub.  b.  ii.  ch.  2,  rule  6.) 

%  "  With  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  those  who  consider  the  Decalogue 
as  a  code  of  universal  morality,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand  how  such 
an  opinion  should  ever  have  prevailed."  Milton.  [Christian  Doctrine, 
b.  ii.  ch.  7.) 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        267 

"The  Decalogue"  consigned  to  the  grave, — under  the  gospel  "colors." 

provision  in  the  code.*  And  having  proved,  beyond  the  pos- 
sibility of  refutation,  that  the  Fourth  commandment  "is  gone  to 
its  grave  with  the  '  signs'  and  'shadows'  of  the  Old  Testament,'^ 
I  might  say,  with  the  Roman  poet,  ^'Jcmiqiie  opus  excgi^^  and 
leave  my  friend  to  arrange  his  necklace  (bereft  of  its  "  pearl 
of  days")  as  best  he  may.  Having  no  desire  for  concealment, 
however,  I  cannot  slight  his  appeal,  but  must  endeavor  to 
''come  out  dcarhjr  I  therefore  take  occasion,  "in  the  name 
of  Truth  and  Honesty,"  to  announce  that  I  am  at  present 
sailing  under  the  "  colors"  of  Paul  and  of  Paul's  Master.  And 
I  "mean  to  do  with  the  Decalogue"  just  as  they  did  with  it — 
leave  it  in  the  grave  to  which  the  Cross  has  consigned  it,  a 
subject  for  the  glass  of  the  Antiquary,  or  the  knife  of  the 
theologic  Anatomist.  I  shall  "leave  it  alone  in  its  glory,'^ 
assured  that  "if  the  ministration  of  death,  written  and  en- 
graven in  stones,  was  glorious  (so  that  the  children  of  Israel 
could  not  steadfastly  behold  the  face  of  Moses,  for  the  glory  of 
his  countenance),"  "  much  more  that  which  remaineth  is  glo- 
rious !" 

*  "  In  its  own  nature,"  says  Dr.  Barrow,  "it  dififeretli  from  the  rest 
of  the  ten  Laws,  the  obligation  thereto  being  not  discernibly  to  natural 
light,  grounded  in  the  reason  of  the  thing."  {Works,  vol.  i.  Exposition 
of  the  Decalogue.)  Hence  it  is  the  only  provision  of  that  code  having 
the  injunctive  "Remember!"  It  would  have  been  impossible  for  the 
legislator  to  have  said,  '-'•  Rememher  not  to  steal!"  '■^ Remember  not  to 
kill !"  These  precepts  were  addressed  to  the  moral  sense  of  his  hear- 
ers ;  the  Sabbath  law  alone,  was  addressed  to  their  memory !  This 
premonition  was  evidently  used,  as  Dr.  Gill  has  well  stated,  "because 
it  was  a  command  of  positive  institution,  and  not  a  part  of  the  law  of 
nature,  and  therefore  more  liable  to  be  forgotten  and  neglected ;  for, 
as  a  Jewish  writer  (Aben  Ezra)  observes,  all  the  laws  of  the  Decalogue 
are  according  to  the  dictates  of  nature,  the  law  and  light  of  reason, 
and  knowledge  of  men,  excepting  this ;  wherefore  no  other  has  this 
word  '  Remember' prefixed  to  it."  [Comment,  on  Exod.  xx.  8.)  Chry- 
sosTOi  draws  the  same  inference  from  this  peculiarity  of  injunction, 
and  considers  the  Sabbatli  law  a  "local  and  temporary"  commandment. 


268  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  Decalogue  entirely  "local  and  temporary." 

In  thus  maintaining  for  it  the  character  by  which  ''it  is 
distinctly  recognized  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles/'  it  will  ne- 
cessarily be  shown  that  J.  N.  B.  has  wholly  misconceived  this 
character.  "  Not  a  trace  of  anything  local,  temporary,  cere- 
monial, or  shadowy,  is  in  it  V  says  he.  Unfortunate  error ! 
"  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  which  brought  thee  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt.''  Is  there  nothing  ''  local  or  temporary'^  here? 
{Jer.  xvi.  14;  Heh.  viii.  9.) — "Visiting  the  iniquity  of  the 
fathers  upon  the  third  and  fourth  generation."  Nothing 
''  local  or  temporary"  here  ?  {Ezch.  xviii.  20 ;  Jer.  xxxi.  29, 
30;  Gal.  vi.  5.)  —  "Thou  wast  a  servant  in  the  land  of 
Egypt — tlievefore  the  Lord  thy  God  commanded  thee  to  keep 
the  Sabbath  day."  Nothing  "  local  or  temporary"  here  ? 
{I^ai.  xliii.  18;  Jer.  xxiii.  7;  Gal.  iv.  3 — 5.) — "The  seventh 
day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God."  Nothing  "  local 
or  temporary"  here?  {Exocl.  xxxi.  15,  17;  ITeh.  iv.  4 — 10; 
Isai.  Ixv.  17.) — "  Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother,  that  thy 
days  may  be  long  upon  the  land  which  the  Lord  thy  God giveth 
thee^  Nothing  "  local  or  temporary"  here?  {Josh.  i.  11.)''' 
Alas !  for  the  cause  whose  advocacy  involves  such  reckless  as- 
sertion. Every  syllable  of  the  Decalogue  is  made  "  local  and 
temporary"  by  its  very  Preamble:  the  universal  criterion  of 
the  object  of  a  law,  and  its  prime  interpreter.  And  be  it 
carefully  remembered,  that  the  Decalogue  has  never  been  en- 
acted ivith  any  other  preamhle  ! 

Is  this  "  Anti-nomianism  ?"     Weak  indeed  is  the  faith,  and 

^  "Why,"  says  Selden,  "  should  I  think  all  the  fourth  command- 
ment belongs  to  me,  when  all  the  fifth  does  not  ?  What  land  will  the 
Lord  give  me  for  honoring  my  father  ?  It  was  spoken  to  the  Jews  with 
reference  to  the  land  of  Canaan."   (Table  Talk.) 

Dr.  Gill  justly  remarks  of  the  promise  given  in  the  fifth  command- 
ment, "  This  further  confii-ms  the  observation  made,  that  this  body  of 
laws  belonged  peculiarly  to  the  people  of  Israel."  (Com.  in  loco.) 

Paul,  with  his  characteristic  love  of  illustration  and  adaptation, 
has  extended  this  "promise"  by  a  liberal  paraphrase.   (Eph.  vi.  3.) 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.  269 

Paul's  triumphant  refutation  of  the  "  Anti-nomian."  "  The  Law" — dead. 

weak  indeed  the  logic,  that  conceives  it !  How  triumphantly 
does  the  Apostle  meet  this  stale  and  trivial  imputation  :  "What 
then  ?  Shall  we  sin,  because  '  we  are  not  under  the  Law/ 
but  under  Grace  ? — God  forbid  I"  And  why  not  ?  Because 
ti2J07'tion  of  the  Law  is  still  obligatory?  Because  we  are  still 
under  the  '^Decalogue  ?"  Never!  but  because  '^  his  servants 
ye  are  whom  ye  ohey  /" — being  not  without  law  to  God,  but 
under  the  law  to  Christ.  "  If  ye  love  me/^  said  he  who  su- 
perseded the  tutor,  "  keep  my  commandments."  The  repeal 
then  of  the  Decalogue  cannot  disturb  "  one  jot  or  one  tittle" 
of  the  moral  law  :  it  leaves  the  whole  subject  of  moral  obliga- 
tion just  where  it  was  before  these  hard-ridden  "  ten  command- 
ments" were  enacted;  and  just  where  it  has  ever  been  since. 
Are  the  millions  who  have  never  heard  of  ''the  Decalogue," 
necessarily  antinomians?  Bead  Rom.  ii.  14,  15,  for  your 
answer.  Were  those  who  lived  during  the  thousands  of  years 
before  "the  Decalogue"  had  existence,  necessarily  antinomians? 
Read  Rom.  v.  13,  for  your  answer.  Are  we  who  live  thou- 
sands of  years  after  "  the  Decalogue"  is  dead,  necessarily  an- 
tinomians ?  Bead  Rom.  vi.  for  your  answer  :  and  blush  for 
the  silliness  of  the  inference. 

"  Before  Faith  came,  we  were  kept  under  '  the  Law,'  .... 
but  after  that  Fciith  is  come,  we  are  no  longer  under  a  school- 
master." "  Now,  we  are  delivered  from  the  '  Law,'  that 
being  dead  wherein  we  were  held ;  that  we  should  serve  in 
newness  of  spirit,  and  not  in  the  oldness  of  the  letter."  {Rom. 
vli.  6.)  But,  says  J.  N.  B.  (p.  173),  "  Paul  does  not  say  that 
the  Law  is  '  dead,'  but  its  c^irse  only,  '  in  which  we  were 
held'  by  our  guilt. —  Gal.  iii.  13."  My  friend  has,  in  this  un- 
lucky assertion,  compromised  his  scholarship  no  less  than  his 
theology.  Paul  does  not  say  that  the  "  curse  only"  is  dead. 
It  is  "  the  Laiv'  which  is  dead  /^  or  rather,  to  which  the 

"  There  is  a  grammatical  variation  in  tb  e  ancient  versions  of  this  pas- 
sage [verse  Gth) — which,  however,  does  not  at  all  affect  the  present 


270  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  Christian  married  to  a,  new  husband. 

Christian  is  "  deacl.'^  (Rom.  vii.  4.)  It  is  "  the  Law'' 
wherein  we  were  held^  before  Faith  came :  it  is  "the  Laiv^'  from 
which  we  are  delivered  by  burial  into  death :  it  is  "  the  Law'' 
(not  "its  curse!'')  which  is  no  longer  to  be  observed  "m  the 
oldness  of  the  letter!"  I  think  it  would  somewhat  puzzle  even 
the  most  "  lawyer-like  subtlety''  to  explain  how  a  curse  is  to 
be  kept  "  in  newness  of  spirit !" — or,  on  the  other  hand,  how 
a  statute  which  has  ceased  to  command  a  literal  obedience,  can 
be  anything  else  but  "  dead  !"* 

"Know  ye  not,  brethren  (for  I  speak  to  them  that  know 
the  law),  how  that  the  law  hath  dominion  over  a  man  as 
long  as  he  liveth  ?  For  the  woman  which  hath  a  husband,  is 
bound  by  the  law  to  her  husband  so  long  as  he  liveth ;  hut  if 
the  husband  he  dead,  she  is  loosed  from  the  law  of  her  hus- 
band ....  Wherefore  my  brethren  ye  also  are  become  dead  to 
^  the  Law'  by  the  body  of  Christ ',  that  ye  shoidd  he  married 
to  another/'  {Jcom.  vii.  1 — 6.)  Is  it  a  "  curse  only,"  think 
you,  that  is  symbolized  as  a  "dead  husband^"     What  glaring 

point.  In  some  copies  it  is  a7To9avovroi — in  direct  apposition  with 
vofxov — "  the  Law  being  dead" — as  rendered  in  our  translation.  In 
others,  it  is  aTroSavovre? — "  we  being  dead  to  that," — as  given  in 
our  marginal  reading.  The  sense  is  in  either  case  the  same: — the 
divorce  is  absolute:  "a  vinculo."  Nay,  the  Apostle  seems  to  have  had 
in  his  mind  both  ideas:  and  hence,  the  mixed  figure  of  a  double  death, 
and  consequently  of  a  double  divorce.  (Compare  verse  4,  with  verse  6  ; 
see  also,  Gal.  ii.  19.) 

■^  "But  now  have  ye,  with  Moses'  law  nothing  to  do,  since  the  same 
is  become  to  you  ward  dead."  Erasmus.  [Paraphrase  on  Rom.  vii.) 

"  It  is  true"  says  Dr.  Chalmers,  in  his  Lectures  on  Romans,  "that 
the  Law  may  be  regarded  as  dead;  and  that  he,  our  former  husband, 
now  '  taken  out  of  the  way,'  has  left  us  free  to  enter  upon  that  alliance 
with  Christ  considered  as  our  new  husband,  which  in  many  other 
parts  of  the  New  Testament  is  likened  unto  a  marriage.  And  it  is 
true  also,  that  the  death  of  the  Law,  which  gave  rise  to  the  dissolution 
of  its  authority  over  us,  took  place  at  the  death  of  Christ."  [Lectxtre 
xxxviii.) 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.  271 

The  ohligatimi  of  the  Law — to  be  proTcd. 

incongruity  of  metaphor  :  what  palpable  violation  of  gramma- 
tical construction  !  "To  what  absurd  results  will  wrong  theo- 
ries lead  intelligent  men  !'' 

Apparently,  J.  N.  B.  feels  an  uneasy  consciousness  of  his 
indefensible  situation,  and  would  like  to  avoid  the  risk  of 
maintaining  it.  "You  have  first  to  prove,''  says  he,  "that 
the  Law  of  the  Decalogue  is  ahrogated,  before  you  demand 
proof  of  its  re-enactment.  Till  this  is  done,  fully  and  fairly, — 
till  the  argument  from  Matt,  v.,  for  example,  is  fairly  met  and 
set  aside  (which  W.  B.  T.  has  not  even  attempted  in  his  Re- 
ply), you  have  no  right  to  demand  proof  of  any  kind  as  to  its 
present  obligation."  (p.  173.)  A  mistake.  My  friend  betrays 
here  a  want  of  logical  perspicacity.  The  burden  of  proof  is 
entirely  upon  him  who  "  afiirms"  the  obligation. 

The  Decalogue  was  actually  promulgated  only  to  the  Israel- 
ites :  its  first  enactment  was  after  their  separation  from  other 
nations;  and  then  with  an  introductory  proviso  expressly  limit- 
ing its  application  to  that  people.  It  is  incumbent  on  J.  N. 
B.,  therefore  (if  he  would  earn  the  character  of  a  "sober 
logician"),  to  show  at  what  time,  and  to  prove  by  what  author- 
ity, the  Decalogue  became  obligatory  upon  the  Gentiles.  Did 
it  bind  the  unconscious  nations  at  its  first  oral  proclamation 
from  Mount  Sinai  ?  Turn  to  Exocl.  xix.  and  xx.,  or  Deut.  v., 
and  see  if  you  can  find  it  thus  written.  "Will  the  date  of  obli- 
gation be  fixed  at  the  first  tradition  of  the  Tables, — a  month 
and  a  half  later?  Turn  to  Exod.  xxxi.  and  xxxiv.,  or  Deut. 
X.,  and  see  if  you  can  find  it  there.  Or  when  the  Gentiles 
turned  to  the  Branch,  and  the  root  of  Jesse,  fifteen  centuries 
later,  was  it  then  made  obligatory  by  Apostolic  edict  ?  Turn 
to  Acts  XV.,  and  see  if  you  can  find  it  written  there.  My 
friend's  "burden"  will  indeed  be  found  a  grievous  one!  No 
wonder  he  is  anxious  to  be  relieved  from  it.  But  there  is  no 
escape,  excepting  the  abandonmeiit  of  his  weak  position. 

If,  instead  of  reposing  in  my  undoubted  prerogative  of  simple 
negation,  I  choose  to  advance  a  step,  and  affirm  the  abrogation 


272  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Total  ahrogation  of  "  the  Law" — fully  establisliecl. 

of  the  Decalogue,  then  do  I,  in  like  manner,  assume  the  task 
of  proving  my  affirmation.  This  I  have  already  '^done  full}/ 
and  fairly."  Nor  is  there  any  room  for  evading  the  uniform 
and  perspicuous  teachings  of  ''the  inspired  Apostle."  If  any 
one  ventures  to  assert  that  Paul,  in  his  frequent  allusions  to 
"the  Law,"  speaks  only  of  the  "ceremoniar'  ^jcir^  of  it,*  I  re- 
quire, in  the  first  place,  some  Bible  evidence  to  support  the 
assertion;  and  I  challenge  the  proof  that  "the  Law'^  is  eyer, 
in  a  solitary  instance,  referred  to,  independently  of  the  ten 
commandments,  or  with  the  design  of  excluding  them  from  its 
exposition. f     And  in  the  second  place,  I  appeal  to  the  explicit 

*  There  arc  some,  even  "  Ministers  of  the  Gospel,"  who  have  been 
ignorant  enough  to  assert  this.  Of  course,  I  do  not  include  J.  N.  B. 
among  these. 

f  "It  cannot  be  denied,"  says  Wiiately,  in  his  Essays  on  raul, 
'■'■  that  he  does  speak,  frequently  and  strongly,  of  the  termination  of 
the  Mosaic  law,  and  of  the  exemption  of  Christians  from  its  obliga- 
tions, without  ever  limiting  or  qualifying  the  assertion,  without  even 
hinting  at  a  distinction  between  one  part  which  is  abrogated,  and  an- 
other which  remains  in  full  force.  It  cannot  be  said  that  he  had  in 
his  mind  the  ceremonial  law  alone,  and  was  alluding  merely  to  the 
abolition  of  that ;  for  in  the  very  passages  in  question,  he  makes  such 
allusions  to  sin,  as  evidently  show  that  he  had  the  moral  law  in  his 
mind ;  as,  for  instance,  where  he  says,  *  The  law  was  added  because 
of  transgressions :'  'By  the  law  was  the  knowledge  of  sin :'  with  many 
other  such  expressions.  And  it  is  remarkable  that  even  when  he 
seems  to  feel  himself  pressed  with  the  mischievous  practical  conse- 
quences which  either  had  been,  or  he  is  sensible  might  be  drawn  from 
his  doctrines,  he  never  attempts  to  guard  against  these  by  limiting  his 
original  assertion ;  by  declaring  that,  though  part  of  the  law  was  at  an 
end,  still  part  continued  binding ;  but  he  always  inculcates  the  neces- 
sity of  moral  conduct  on  some  c/(^e;-e?i^  ground.  For  instance:  'What 
shall  we  say  then  ?  Shall  we  continue  in  sin  that  grace  may  abound? 
God  forbid.'  He  does  not  then  add  that  a  part  of  the  Mosaic  law  re- 
mains in  force;  but  urges  this  consideration:  'How  shall  we,  Avho  are 
dead  to  sin,  live  any  longer  therein?  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us 
as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  wei*e  baptized  into  his  death?'  &c. 
And  such  also  is  his  tone  in  every  passage  i-elating  to  the  same  sub- 
ject."  {Essny  v.) 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.         273 

The  Decalogue — specificaUy,  abrogated. 

letter  of  the  Record  as  decisively  refuting  this  unfounded  as- 
sumption, and  impressively  rebuking  its  rashness.  It  is  "the 
Decalogue"  which  was  "done  away"  by  a  more  glorious  minis- 
tration. (2  Cor.  iii.  7 — 11.)  It  is  "the  Decalogue'^  from 
which,  as  from  a  dead  husband,  "we  are  delivered.'^  {Rom. 
vii.  2 — 7.)  It  is  "the  Decalogue''  which  "decayed''  and 
"vanished  away"  before  a  better  covenant.  (Heb.  viii.  9 — 13; 
Deut.  V.  2 — G.)  It  is  "the  Decalogue''  which  was  "blotted 
out,"  and  "nailed  to  the  cross"*  as  being  inseparably  linked 
with  the  "shadows"  and  "  carnal  ordinances  imposed  until  the 
time  of  the  reformation,"  and  which  served  unto  the  example 
of  more  heavenly  things  under  the  new  priesthood  "of  good 
things  to  come."  (Col.  ii.  14 — 17;  ITeh.  iv.,  ix.  10;  Eom. 
xiv.)  In  fine,  it  is  "the  Decalogue"  which  is  ever  placed  in 
contrast  with  the  newer  government  of  Mount  Sion  and  the 
spiritual  Jerusalem.  {Ileh.  xii.  18 — 24.) 

But  I  "have  not  even  attempted"  to  set  aside  "the  argument 
from  Matt,  v."    Most  true !    I  should  indeed  regret  to  see  that 

*  An  objection  has  been  raised  to  this  (during  the  present  Discus- 
sion) by  our  respected  seventh-day  Baptist  friends  of  the  New  York 
"Sabbath  Recorder,"  derived  from  propriety  of  metaphor,  and  the 
inconvenience  of  '■'■nailing'''  a  "table  of  stone"  to  a  cross!  It  is  suffi- 
cient that  it  is  not  impossible.  And  Paul  has  told  us  most  explicitly 
that  the  nail  has  hem  driven  directly  through  the  fourth  commandment ! 
(CoZ.  ii.)  However  difficult  this  accomplishment,  our  friends  will  find 
it  vastly  harder  work  to  chisel  away  the  balance  of  the  tablet  from  its 
crucified  position! 

"The  'ordinances'  of  which  the  apostle  spake  to  the  Colossians," 
says  Macknight,  "were  ordinances,  the  blotting  out  of  which  was  a 
proof  that  God  had  forgiven  the  Colossians  all  trespasses.  The  proof 
did  not  arise  from  the  blotting  out  of  the  ritual,  but  of  the  moral  pre- 
cepts of  the  law  of  Moses,  as  sanctioned  with  the  curse  [&c.].  .  .  . 
The  moral  precepts  of  the  Law  of  Moses  are  called  the  Chirograph  or 
'■handwriting  of  ordinances,'  because  the  most  essential  of  these  pre- 
cepts were  written  by  the  hand  of  God  on  two  tables  of  stone."  [Com- 
ment, on  Epistles,  in  loco.)     ''Facilis  descensus !"  J.  N.  B.   [p.  66.) 


274  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

"  The  argument  from  Matt,  t." — not  to  be  set  aside. 

argument  ''set  aside/'  It  is  altogether  too  interesting  and  too 
important  to  a  full  understanding  of  the  Mosaic  jurisdiction. 
Let  him  who  would  see  displayed  the  moral  code  of  Evangelic 
("anti-nomian'^)  Anti-sabbatarianism  read  carefully  and  in- 
wardly digest  that  ''sermon  on  the  mount;"  let  him  see  if 
there  is  to  be  found  in  it  a  fragment  of  a  platform  for  unspi- 
ritual  Sabbatarianism  to  stand  upon. 

"  Blessed  are  the  humble,  and  the  sorrowful,  and  the  meek, 
and  the  righteous,  and  the  merciful,  and  the  pure,  and  the 
peace-making,  and  the  persecuted;''  but  never  the  ceremonial, 
never  the  tithe-paying,  never  the  Sabhatli-heeinng  !  When  the 
Teacher  proceeded  to  a  more  particular  notice  of  the  Mosaic 
law,  in  no  single  instance  did  he  rest  a  moral  duty  on  the  au- 
thority of  that  law :  in  no  single  instance  did  he  claim  to  be 
the  interpreter  of  that  law  I*  So  far  the  contrary ,  he  followed 
each  quotation  of  a  legal  enactment  with  the  disjunctive  anti- 
thesis:  "But  I  say  unto  yoiC  something  different!  "He 
taught  them — not  as  the  Scribes" — not  as  a  subtle  expounder 
of  a  statute ;  but  "he  taught  them  as  one  having  authority" 
himself  to  command :  insomuch  that  "the  people  were  as/o?i- 
ished  at  his  doctrine !"  {Matt.  vii.  28,  29.) 

■5^"  That  Jesus  was  in  no  sense  the  administrator  or  expositor  of  the 
Jewish  code,  is  most  decisively  shown  by  the  very  text  which  has  been 
so  currently  (and  I  must  add — so  perversely)  cited  to  favor  an  oppo- 
site opinion.  The  explanation,  "  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy 
the  Law,"  would  be  altogether  uncalled  for  and  unmeaning  from  the 
lips  of  one  who  assumed  the  office  of  mere  expounder.  What  would 
be  thought  of  the  intelligence  of  the  commentator  who  should  gravely 
assert  that  he  did  not  design  to  '*  destroy'''  the  text  he  was  avowedly 
attempting  to  unfold  ?  It  was  precisely  because  Jesus  was  not  a  com- 
mentator; precisely  because,  "as  one  having  authority,"  he  did  set 
aside  the  olden  law,  that  this  memorable  disclaimer  was  rendered  ne- 
cessary. Viewed  in  the  light  of  that  whole  perspicuous  and  consistent 
Sermon,  how  significant  to  the  awakened  reason — how  important  for 
the  stumbled  faith — was  the  majestic  annunciation  :  "In  all  this  dis- 
pensation, I  am  not  destroying,  but  fulfilling!" 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.         275 

'*  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount." 

Until  the  advent  of  the  baptist  Harbinger,  "the  Law  and 
the  Prophets"  maintained  their  inviolable  supremacy:  but 
when  the  "witness  of  the  Light"  appeared,  he  heralded  cni- 
other  "kingdom."  And  yet,  even  then,  no  "tittle  of  ^  the  Law' 
could  fail"  of  its  great  office.  {Luke  xvi.  16,  17.)  For  the 
Master  "came  not  to  destroy"  the  Mosaic  economy;  but  he 
came  "to /«<//?/"  it.  His  mission  was  not  to  "make  it  void;" 
but  to  "estahlish"  it  in  its  higher  spiritual  significance.  And 
^^7/  this  "fulfilment,"  one  jot  could  not  pass  from  "the  Law," 
nor  its  minutest  requirement  be  neglected. 

The  references  to  the  Pentateuch,  which  formed  the  texts  of 
this  instructive  discourse,  were  gathered  indifferently  from  the 
Decalogue  and  the  general  "Law;"  as  if  with  the  very  design 
of  showing  their  identity  of  character  and  their  correspondency 
of  obligation.'^  Nor  can  a  single  hint  be  found  throughout  his 
lucid  and  assiduous  teachings  to  favor  the  "  fancy"  of  an?/  su- 
jierior  sanctity  in  the  taUes  of  stone.  But  every^where  the 
CONTRARY  If     He  taught  that  a  true  morality  did  not  consist 

^  It  appears  strange  that,  upon  tliis  point,  my  friend  J.  N.  B.  and 
myself  should,  from  the  same  premises,  have  arrived  at  opposite  con- 
clusions !  He  remarks,  in  his  former  Reply  {p.  58),  "  That  by  '  these 
commandments'  \_Matt.  v.  19],  our  Lord  meant  the  commandments  of 
the  Decalogue,  seems  to  me  so  perfectly  plain,  from  the  specifications 
which  follow,  \_\~\  that  I  shall  consider  it  beyond  all  dispute.  When  it 
is  formally  denied,  it  vrill  be  time  enough  formally  to  prove  it."  My 
friend  will  find  it  infinitely  more  difficult  "  formally  to  prove  it,"  than 
to  "  consider  it  beyond  dispute !" 

"In  all  Paul's  Epistles,"  says  Baxter,  "and  commonly  in  all  the 
New  Testament,  the  word  'Law'  is  ordinarily,  if  not  always,  taken 
more  extensively  than  the  Decalogue :  therefore,  to  expound  it  for  the 
Decalogue  only,  is  to  contradict  the  constant  use  of  Scripture,  under  pre- 
tence of  expounding  the  Scriptui'e."  [Lord's  Day,  appendix,  chap,  ii.) 

J  When,  for  example,  the  lawyer  asked  "which  is  the  great  com- 
mandment in  'the  Law?'  "  Jesus,  instead  of  turning  to  "the  Deca- 
logue" (the  infallible  resort  of  the  Sabbatarian),  referred  him  to  Deut. 
vi.  5,  for  "the  first  and  great  commandment;"  and  to  Levit.  xix.  18, 
for  "  the  second  :"  and  he  declared  that  "  on  these  two  Commandments 


276  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Synopsis  of  "  the  argument  from  Matthew  v." 

(as  carnal  ^'  Nomianism"  is  ever  too  prone  to  suppose)  in  a 
strict  observance  of  any  written  commandment ,  but  that  its 
demands  reacted  back  (ivhere  no  statute  can)  to  the  moving 
impulse  and  the  secret  thought!  {Matt.  xv.  19.) 

Your  Decalogue  prohibits  manslaughter;  ^' but  J  say  unto 
you/'  the  malicious  feeling  is  guilt !  Your  Decalogue  forbids 
adultery;  "but  /  say  unto  you/'  the  lustful  thought  is  crimi- 
nal !  Your  Law  of  Moses  instructs  its  observers  how  they 
may  obtain  a  legal  divorce;  "but  /  say  unto  you/'  he  who 
follows  out  its  provisions,  is  guilty  of  offence  I  What !  Did 
not  Moses  direct  us  to  give  a  writing  of  divorcement  ?  (Deut. 
xxiv.  1.)  Yes,  truly,  in  adaptation  to  the  age  of  hardness  in 
which  he  lived,  but  there  is  a  morality  higher  and  older  than 
that  of  Moses ;  and  "from  the  hegi7ining,"  the  command  was 
not  so!  {3Iatt.  xix.  7 — 9.)  There  is  a  code  engraven  upon 
other  tables  than  those  of  stone;  and  instead  of  trusting  to  the 
written  Law — "why  not  even  of  yourselves  judge  ye  not  what 
is  right  ?"  {LuJce  xii.  57.)  Your  Law  requires  a  faithful  ob- 
servance of  oaths;  "but  /  say  unto  you,  swear  7iot  at  all!" 
neither  by  God's  throne  (3Iatt.  xxiii.  22);  nor  even  by  his 
footstool;  ("neither  hy  any  other  oath .'" — James  v.  12.)  Your 
Law  commands  a  strict  retribution  upon  the  wrong-doer;  "but 
/say  unto  you,"  retribute  not  the  wrong!  Your  Law  enjoins 
a  patriotic  affection  for  your  neighbor  and  your  countryman, 
and  an  utter  disregard  for  the  peace  or  prosperity  of  the 
foreigner  and  the  enemy;  "but  /  say  unto  you,"  love  even 
your  enemies,  and  do  good  to  those  that  hate  you! 

Such  were  His  sublime  "commandments!"*  Such  were 
the  methods  by  which  Jesus  superseded  the  "fulfilled"  code 
of  Sinai;t  and  manifested  to  his  "astonished"  countrymen, 

hang  all  '  the  Law  and  the  Froj^hets.'  "  {3fait.  xxii.  37—40;  3fark  xii. 

29 — 34.)    That  precious  "necklace"  with  its  "pearl  of  days"  appears 

to  have  been  entirely  overlooked ! 

*  "If  ye  love  me,  keep  My  'Commandments  !'  "  (John  xiv.  15.) 
■f  "That  is  to  say,  profaneness  towards  God,  disobedience  to  parents, 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        277 

"  If  ye  lore  me,  keep  My  commandments." 

that  he  taught  authoritatively  I"^  impressing  upon  them 
the  importance  undet  Ids  kingdom,  of  serving  no  longer  in  the 
okhiess  of  tlie  letter^  but  in  entire  newness  of  spirit! 

Such  is  an  epitome  of  ^'the  argument  from  Matt,  v.;" 
and  he  will  indeed  be  bold,  who  even  "attempts  to  set  it  aside." 
"If  any  man  speak,  let  him  speak  as  the  oracles  of  God!" 

"Whosoever  therefore  shall  break  one  of  these  least  com- 
mandments, and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called  the 
least  in  Hhe  kingdom  of  heaven.'  .  .  .  Whosoever  heareth 
these  sayings  of  3Iin€  and  doeth  them,  I  will  liken  him  unto 
a  wise  man,  which  built  his  house  upon  a  rock;  and  the  rain 
descended,  and  the  floods  came,  and  the  winds  blew,  and  beat 
upon  that  house ;  and  it  fell  not :  for  it  was  founded  upon  a 
rock.f  And  every  one  that  heareth  these  sayings  of  Mine, 
and  doeth  them  not,  shall  be  likened  unto  a  foolish  man  which 
built  his  house  upon  the  smid :  and  the  rain  descended,  and 
the  floods  came,  and  the  winds  blew,  and  beat  upon  that  house; 

lying,  robbery,  and  murder,  are  no  longer  sins  under  the  Christian 
dispensation!"  <' There  remains  no  moral  obligation  on  Gentile 
Christians  !"  J.  N.  B.  (pp.  74,  75.)  My  friend  cannot  distinguish  be- 
tween "  Neonomianism"  and  "  Antinomianism!"' 

"We  utterly  mistake  the  matter,"  says  Chalmers,  *'if  we  think 
that  because  emancipated  from  the  relation  in  which  we  formerly 
stood  to  th-e  Law,  we  are  therefore  emancipated  from  all  service.  The 
wife  owes  a  duty  to  her  second  husband,  as  well  as  her  first.  The  one 
has  claims  upon  her  obedience,  and  her  dutiful  regards,  as  well  as  the 
other.  .  .  And  thus  it  is  with  the  Law  on  the  one  hand,  and  with  Christ 
on  the  other.  Under  the  Law  we  were  bidden  to  do  and  live  :  under 
Christ,  we  are  bidden  to  live  and  do."  {Lectures  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.     Lect.  xxxviii.) 

*  "He  hath  delivered  his  precepts  after  the  most  pez-fect  manner, 
with  the  greatest  authority  ;  not  like  Moses  and  the  prophets,  sayiug 
Thus  saith  th-e  Lord;  but  '/say  unto  you  ;'  not  like  the  interpreters  of 
Moses,  for  he  taught  them  as  one  having  authority^''  Bishop  Pearsos. 
{Exposition  of  the  Creed,  art.  ii.  on  '^Christ." ) 

J  Ephesians  ii.  20. 

24 


278  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  Sabbath  excluded  from  the  Model  Sermon. 

and  it  fell:  and  great  was  the  fall  of  it!"  "He  that  hath  Mi/ 
'commandments/  and  keepeth  them,  he  it  is  that  loveth  me!'^ 
The  "Law"  made  nothing  perfect,  but  "the  bringing  in  of  a 
better  hope  did."'^ 

It  is  well  observed  by  Bunyan  :  "  In  all  that  large  and 
heavenly  discourse  upon  the  law,  you  have  not  one  syllable 
about  the  seventh-day  Sabbath!"  Is  it  not  marvellous  that 
Jesus  so  utterly  forgot  a  vital  "moral"  duty,  as  to  lend  not 
even  an  approving  glance  at  this  "bright  link  of  man  with 
man,  and  earth  with  heaven — the  blessing  of  this  world,  and 
the  beacon-light  of  that  which  is  to  come?"  What  modern 
Sermon  (wiser  than  the  Master's)  could  be  held  complete  with- 
out a  glowing  Sabbath  eulogy,  and  an  awe-toned  reprobation 
of  the  "  Sabbath-hreaker  f"  How  shall  we  explain  so  startling 
an  omission?  nay  worse,  how  shall  we  comprehend  an  omis- 
sion, pervading  the  whole  New  Testament  ?f  Irreparable 
oversight  ! 

*  "If  we  will  acknowledge  Christ  to  be  our  lawgiver,"  says  Bishop 
Taylor,  "  and  the  Gospel  to  be  his  law,  called  in  the  New  Testament 
'  the  law  of  liberty,'  '  a  royal  law,'  then  must  we  expect  that  our  duty 
shall  be  further  extended  than  to  a  conformity  in  our  lives  to  the  'tea 
words'  of  Moses.  ...  I  know  it  is  said  very  commonly  (and  the  casuists 
do  commonly  use  that  method),  that  the  explication  of  the  Decalogue 
be  the  sum  of  all  their  theology ;  but  how  insufficiently,  the  foregoing 
instances  do  sufficiently  demonstrate ;  and  therefore  how  inartificially 
will  also  appear  in  the  violence  and  convulsions,  that  must  needs  be 
used,  to  draw  all  these  dissonances  into  one  centre."  [Ductor  Dubi' 
taiit.  Book  ii.  chap.  2,  rule  4.) 

-j-  Vide  "Proposition  IV."  This  unfortunate  circumstance  of 
course  necessarily  drives  my  friend  to  the  remarkable  position,  that 
the  New  Covenant  does  not  in  itself  comprise  a  sufficient  code  of  moral 
duty  for  the  Christian,  "  thoroughly  to  furnish  him  unto  all  good 
works !"  And  that  the  Sabbath  law  shall  not  be  the  solitary  exotic  to 
be  transplanted  into  the  Gospel  garden,  he  endeavors  to  show  how 
necessary  it  is  to  incorporate  the  second  commandment  also.  "  As 
well,"  says  he  in  his  former  Reply  {p.  58),  "might  you  raise  the 
same  objection  against  the  first  commandment,  or  the  second,  or  the 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        279 

Error — perishable.  Truth  only,  cndtirinjr. 

Look  to  it,  ye  Christian  Pharisees,  lest  in  tithing  mint,  and 
more  than  tithing  daysy  ye  "be  likened  unto  the  foolish  man, 
who  built  his  house  upon  the  sand  P'  and  lest,  however  admired 
your  edifice,  '^great  shall  be  the  fall  of  it!"  Though  ye 
would  build  "a  tower  whoso  top  might  reach  unto  heaveiij' 
call  to  mind  how  in  ancient  legend,  "  The  Lord  came  down  to 
see  the  tower  which  the  ^children  of  Men'  builded,"  and  they 
were  scattered  in  confusion  !*  Though  ye  weekly  point  to 
your  gilded  temple,  and  sq  complacently  repeat  to  your 
credulous  and  uninquiring  hearers,  "See  what  manner  of 
stones,  and  what  buildings  are  here!"  and  "how  adorned  with 
goodly  stones  and  gifts  !"  remember  that  again  it  was  written 
of  old — "the  da3^s  will  come,  in  the  which  there  shall  not  be 
left  one  stone  upon  another,  that  shall  not  he  throicn  doicnP' 
For  the  weapons  of  our  warfare  are  mighty  to  the  pulling  down 
of  the  strong-holds  of  antiquated  error,  however  firmly  estab- 
lished, however  cunningly  fortified,  by  whatever  numbers  of 
the  wise,  the  powerful,  and  the  illustrious,  stubbornly  defended. 


TRUTH  ONLY  IS  IMMORTAL 


Two  personal  suggestions  demand  a  moment's  attention 
before  I  lay  down  my  pen.f     In  concluding  ni}^  last  Reply,  I 

fifth,  or  the  eighth,  as  against  i\iQ  fourth.  '  But  he  does  specify  them 
elsewhere,'  it  may  be  said.  I  answer  yes,  the  fifth  and  eighth  (per- 
haps the  first  and  tenth  also)  ;  but  nowhere  the  second." — As  though 
the  "  second"  could  be  riolated,  if  tlie  "  first"  were  obeyed !  {Mark  xii. 
29,  32.)  He  who  requires  a  clearer  prohibition  of  idolatry  than  that 
in  Acts  XV.  20,  needs  not  appeal  to  the  "  second  commandment."  Ilis 
conscience  cannot  be  enlightened  by  the  Decalogue ! 

*  "The  Most  High  dwelleth  not  in  temples  made  with  hands;  as 
saith  the  prophet,  Heaven  is  my  throne,  and  earth  is  my  footstool : 
what  house  will  ye  build  me  ?  saith  the  Lord ;  or  what  is  the  place  of 
my  rest?"  [Acts  vii.  48,  49.) 

f  A   minor  point  occurs,  which  should  perhaps  receive  a  passing 


280  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Personal  considerations.  "  Grave  charges"  against  Sabbatarianism. 

could  not  help  adverting  to  the  remarkable  fact  that  Christians 
of  the  denominations  most  strenuously  professing  to  reject  all 
human  institutions  in  religion — the  Protestants  of  ■  Protestants — 
were  the  loudest  and  least  tolerant  assertors  of  that  unscriptu- 
ral  dogma,  a  '^  Christian  Sabbath  P^  and  that  while  vaunting 
their  peculiar  advocacy  of  "  the  Bible,  the  whole  Bible,  and 
nothing  hut  the  Bible,''  upon  this  great  question  they  actually 
"made  the  word  of  God  of  none  effect  through  their  traditions," 
"  teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men/'  (p.  158.) 
J.  N.  B.,  in  a  passing  allusion  to  this  paragraph,  remarks, 
"He  has  indeed  (in  closing  his  part  iv.)  become  an  'accuser 
of  the  brethren.'*  He  has  brought  against  me,  and  my 
brethren  also,  charges  of  the  gravest  kind."  {p.  181.) 

I  regret  my  friend's  susceptibility  on  this  point,  but  cannot 
think  his  inference  exactly  just.  "Am  I  therefore  become 
your  'enemy,'  because  I  tell  you  the  truth  f  My  "gravest 
charge"  has  been  that  Christian  Sabbatarianism  is  unscriptu- 
ral.  And  to  establish  this  charge,  has  been  my  sole  business 
from  the  beginning :  as  my  friend's  task  has  been  to  prove  (if 
he  could)  the  opposing  doctrine  unscriptural,  and  justify  his 
assertion  that  my  "  stand-point  is  not  that  of  Paul."   (jo,  62.) 

But  while  I  would  "  rebuke  sharply"  those  who  presume  to 
hold  in  their  bondage  "  another  Master's  servant,"  and  arro- 
gantly "judge  one  man's  liberty  by  another  man's  conscience," 
and  while  I  would  "  give  no  place  by  subjection,"  but  would 

notice.  My  friend  complains  (/>.  181, — note)  that  I  styled  an  argu- 
ment of  his — "  etymological,  when  it  is  exegetical.^''  Real  and  important 
as  the  distinction  undoubtedly  is,  I  see  not  how  it  affects  our  present 
discussion.  If  an  argument  be  inconclusive,  it  matters  but  little  to 
which  class  it  belongs.  But  I  think  it  will  generally  be  admitted,  that 
in  popular  acceptation,  at  least,  the  "  exegetical"  is  but  a  department 
of  the  "■  etymological."  Nor  is  it  perhaps  always  easy  to  discriminate 
accurately  between  their  respective  boundaries.  At  all  events,  the 
issue  appears  to  me  to  be  entirely  a  verbal  one. 
""   See  John  v.  45. 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        281 

The  fairness  of  "  partial  extracts." 

"  withstand  them  to  the  face  because  they  are  to  he  blamed," 
still,  would  I  "  count  them  not  as  '  enemies,^  but  admonish 
them  as  brothers."  Least  of  all,  would  I  reproach  them  for 
their  belie/.  I  would  unswervingly  uphold  the  inviolable  sanc- 
tity of  opinion ;  believing  that  a  sincere  faith  is  amenable  to 
no  human  "  accusation/'  but  is  accountable  to  Grod  alone, — 
be  that  faith  what  it  may.  As  I  stated  in  my  last  Reply  (p. 
87)  :  "  Certainly  I  shall  neither  presume  to  'judge,'  nor  to 
'  set  at  naught'  a  believer,  however  '  weak  in  the  faith' "  I 
might  esteem  him.  "  This  is  well  said,"  observes  J.  N.  B. 
(p.  161.)  ''  How  well  it  is  fulfilled,  will  appear  in  the  se- 
quel." I  join  with  my  friend  in  the  reference.  How  far  I 
have  been  consistent,  our  mutual  readers  for  themselves  must 
judge. 

The  other  remaining  point  to  be  noticed,  is  one  of  graver 
moment.  In  an  early  part  of  the  Discussion  (p.  56),  J.  N. 
B.,  in  referring  to  the  writers  I  had  cited,  remarked  :  "  Of  the 
unynarded  language  of  others  he  has  made  a  use,  I  think,  they 
never  designed."  In  part  i.  of  my  Beply,  I  assured  him  that 
"  painful  as  such  a  conviction  would  be,  I  should  certainly  be 
thankful  to  him  for  its  frank  indication  :"  and  that  ''if,  through 
prejudice  or  inadvertence,  I  had  given  an  unfair  coloring  to 
authority,  I  would  much  rather  be  corrected,  and  retract  a 
mistaken  application,  than  continue  in  error,  or  labor  under 
an  intangible  imputation."  {p.  101.)  This  "frank  indication" 
of  an  instance  of  "  undesigned"  use  of  "  unguarded  language," 
has  not  been  made  :  but  instead,  J.  N.  B.  replies  :  "  I  do  not 
impute  to  him  any  intention  of  making  unfair  quotations,  or 
of  giving  them  a  wrong  coloring.  I  believe  him  as  incapable  of 
this  injustice  as  myself.  Yet  such  an  appearance  [!]  is  often 
inseparable  from  partial  extracts,  like  those  he  has  made  from 
Calvin  and  Bunyan.  With  regard  to  Calvin,  the  fact  may  be 
verified  [?]  in  a  few  moments  by  reading  in  Vol.  I.  of  his  In- 
stitutes, the   single    section    on    the  Fourth    Commandment. 

24* 


282  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

The  demand  for  "  correction" — unsatisfactorily  answered. 

And  as  to  Bunyan,  the  *  Epistle  to  the  Reader'  prefixed  to  his 
Treatise  on  the  Sabbath,  will  make  the  matter  clear/'  (p.  193.) 

My  friend's  answer  is  not  as  explicit  as  my  appeal  was  per- 
spicuous. I  did  not  assume  the  charge  of  '^  intentional  un- 
fairness, therefore  the  disclaimer  was  unnecessary :  but  ^'  if, 
through  prejudice  or  inadvertence,"  my  quotations  were  unfairly 
colored,  I  asked  for  '^ correction. '^  Although  this  has  not  been 
offered,  the  imputation  is  no  longer  "  intangible ;"  and  self- 
respect  imperatively  requires  from  me  a  thorough  examination 
and  a  decisive  replication. 

"  Such  an  appearance  !" — What  "  appearance  ?"  An  ap- 
pearance "  of  giving  quotations  a  wro7ig  coloring?"  And  what 
*'fact  may  be  verified"  by  reading  Calvin?  The  ^^fact"  of 
such  apparent  wrong  coloring  ?  Where  is  the  example  ?  My 
friend  has  not  adduced  it.*  I  hesitate  not  to  say  he  cannot 
adduce  it !  On  a  careful  review  of  the  authorities  to  whom 
I  have  referred,  I  state  it  as  my  confident  belief,  that, 
without  a  shade  of  "  apparent  coloring,"  they  bear  out,  to 
the  utmost,  the  particular  doctrines  they  have  been  summoned 
to  elucidate.  "  With  regard  to  Calvin,  the  fact  may  be  veri- 
fied" by  the  statement  that  he  will  fully  indorse  the  whole 
of  my  *'Six  Propositions. "t     The  prhyiary  design  of  the 

*  A  more  critical  discernment  would  probably  have  prevented  my 
fi'iend's  imputation ;  and  would  certainly  have  obviated  his  sagacious 
surmise  that  my  authorities  did  not  all  ^^ fully  agree  with  me  !!"  [p. 
56.)  A  "  sober  logician"  should  know  that  evidence,  presented  upon 
one  point,  has  nothing  to  do  with  any  other  point.  If  my  witnesses 
fairly  confirm  the  facts  or  constructions  for  which  they  have  been  re- 
spectively adduced,  it  is  simply  idle  to  inquire  .whether  they  "fully 
agree  with  me  in  my  Anti- Sabbatarian  views!"  My  friend  is,  of 
course,  at  full  liberty  to  make  the  most  he  can  out  of  their  cross-ex- 
amination. 

f  I  do  not  of  course  mean  by  this,  that  Calvin,  in  explicit  terms, 
affirms  each  of  the  "six  propositions,"  but  that,  from  the  tenor  of  his 
writings,  he  evidently  would  not  hesitate  to  do  so.  And  I  throw  upon 
J.  N.  B.  the  proof  that  he  has  ever,  in  any  of  his  writings,  directly  or 
indirectly,  impeached  one  of  them. 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.        283 

A  '•  partial  extract"  from  Calvut. 

fourth  commandment  was,  in  his  opinion,  "  to  give  the  people 
of  Israel  a  figure  of  the  spiritual  rest  by  which  the  faithful 
ought  to  refrain  from  their  own  works,  in  order  to  leave  God 
to  work  with  them  :"  and  he  maintains  that  "  Christ  is  the  end 
and  consummation  of  that  true  rest  foreshadowed  by  the  an- 
cient Sabbath/'  In  relation  to  ''the  Lord's  day,"  he  observes 
that  it  was  used  ^^  only  as  a  remedy  necessary  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  order  in  the  Church/'  ''  Neither,''  says  he,  "  do  I  so 
regard  the  septenary  number  tliat  I  would  hind  the  church  to 
its  observance !  .  .  The  amount  is,  that  as  the  truth  was  deli- 
vered to  the  Jews  under  a  figure,  so  it  is  given  to  us  without 
shadows — first  that  we  may  consecrate  our  entire  life,  as  a  per- 
petual Sabbatism  from  our  own  works,"  &c.  .  .  "  Thus  vanish 
all  the  dreams  of  false  jrrophets,  who  in  past  ages  have  imbued 
the  people  with  a  Judaic  opinion,  affirming  that  nothing  was 
abrogated  in  this  command,  except  what  was  'ceremonial,' 
(which  by  their  account  is  the  appointment  of  '  the  seventh 
day')  but  that  what  was  '  moral'  remained  in  force, — namely, 
the  observance  of  one  day  in  seven.  But  this  is  nothing  else 
but  to  change  the  day  in  contempt  of  the  Jews,  and  to  i-etain 
the  same  belief  in  the  '  holiness'  of  the  day;  for,  by  this,  the 
same  mysterious  significance  would  still  be  attributed  to  par- 
ticular days,  which  formerly  obtained  among  the  Jews.  And 
truly  we  see  what  such  a  doctrine  has  profited :  for  those  who 
adopt  it  far  exceed  the  Jews  in  a  gross,  carnal,  and  supersti- 
tious observance  of  the  Sabbath:  so  that  the  reproofs  which  we 
read  in  Isaiah  are  no  less  applicable  to  them  at  the  present 
day,  than  to  those  whom  the  prophet  rebuked  in  his  time." 
(Institutes,  lib.  ii.  cap.  8,  sect.  34.) 

So  closes  Calvin's  admirable  exposition  of  the  Sabbath  Law. 
I  earnestly  hope  that  neither  J.  N.  B.  nor  his  readers  will  be 
misled  by  any  false  "  appearance"  in  these  partial  extracts,  to 
"  give  them  a  wrong  coloring  !" 

"  As  to  BuNYAN,"  says  he,  "  the  '  Fpistle  to  the  Reader'  &c. 
will  make  the  matter  clear  1"     ?Iake  what  matter  "clear?" 


284  ABROGATION  Or  THE  SABBATH. 

Buntan's  Tiews.  A  fallacious  use  of  "  words." 

The  '^  appearance"  of  ^''unfair  coloring?''^  J.  N.  B.  ^'  quotes 
a  sentence  or  two"  (^.  194)  going  to  show  Bunyan's  belief 
"  that  the  first  day  of  the  week  is  the  true  Christian  Sabbath !" 
A  single  remark  is  sufficient  to  dissipate  my  friend's  delusion, 
and  to  entirely  paralyze  his  last  convulsive  effort  to  retain  the 
name  and  authority  of  Bunyan.  They  are  using  the  term 
"  Sabbath"  in  totally  different  senses!  In  the  vocabulary  of  J. 
N.  B.  (as  in  mine),  it  designates  the  day  of  rest  commanded 
by  the  Decalogue.  In  that  of  Bunyan,  it  designates  simply  a 
day  of  festive  worship,  without  any  more  reference  to  the  De- 
calogue, than  if  that  code  had  never  existed  !*  Indeed,  al- 
though he  entitles  Sunday  a  ''Sabbath"  (perhaps  in  adaptation 
to  ordinary  usage),  the  application  is  by  no  means  accurate, 
since  his  whole  argument  is  designed — not  to  establish  a  ''Best- 
day,"  and  the  sinfulness  of  labor  upon  it,  but  to  uphold  the 

^'  J.  N.  B.  has  altogether  overlooked  this  important  circumstance, 
although  in  my  last  Reply  (p.  147, — note)  I  called  his  attention  to  it 
by  remarking  that  "  since  Bunyan  founds  his  able  argument  for  a 
Christian  worship-day  on  the  unconditional  abolition  of  the  fourth 
commandment,  if  '  he  really  is  on  my  friend's  ground,'  I  tender  J.  N. 
B.  my  most  hearty  congratulation  on  his  adoption  of  the  true  Scrip- 
tural view." 

A  synopsis  of  Bunyan's  Treatise  "will  make  the  matter  clear." 
The  Essay  is  divided  into  five  chapters,  entitled  "  questions  :"  in  the 
first  of  which,  the  author  maintains  that  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  is 
not  discoverable  by  the  light  of  nature :  in  the  second,  that  it  was  con- 
sequently unknown  till  instituted  by  Moses :  in  the  third,  that  when 
given  in  the  wilderness,  it  could  not  bind  the  Gentiles:  in  the  fourth, 
that  it  fell  with  the  rest  of  the  Jewish  rites  and  ceremonies,  and  was 
never  imposed  by  the  apostles  upon  the  Gentile  churches.  These  are 
all  the  positions  having  any  bearing  on  the  fourth  commandment,  or 
of  course  on  our  present  Discussion.  The  fifth  and  last  "question"  ex- 
amined by  Bunyan  (and  one  which  comprises  more  than  half  his  Es- 
say), is,  "Since  it  is  denied  that  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  is  mora 
and  found  that  it  is  not  to  abide  as  a  Sabbath  forever  in  the  churcli, 
what  time  is  to  be  fixed  on  for  New  Testament  saints  to  perform  to- 
gether divine  worship  to  God  by  Christ  in  !" 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.  285 

A  '•  partial  extract"  from  Bcxyax. 

duty  of  a  thanksgiving  day,  in  grateful  commemoration  of  the 
Messiah's  triumph  in  becoming  "  the  first  fruits  of  them  that 
slept."  Now  BuNYAN  will  readily  assent  to  all  my  "Pro- 
positions" excepting  the  First:  and  in  reference  to  this  first 
one,  he  takes  just  opposite  ground  from  J.  N.  B.  So  that  my 
friend  is  absolutely  and  hopelessly  excluded  from  using  his 
testimony  07i  any  one  ]^jolntl  For  while  J.  N.  B.  very  correct- 
ly admits  that  "  there  is  but  one  Bible  Sabbath"  {f.  46),  BuN- 
YAN  will  prove  to  him  that  Saturday  is  the  only  Sabbath  re- 
cognized by  the  fourth  commandment !  With  my  friend's 
kind  assistance,  therefore,  our  author  will  indorse  aZ^the  "Pro- 
positions !"  An  extract  "will  make  the  matter  clear."  " This 
caution  in  conclusion  I  would  give,  to  put  a  stop  to  this  Jewish 
ceremony,  to  wit,  that  a  seventh-day  Sabbath  pursued  according 
to  its  imposition  hy  law  (and  I  know  not  that  it  is  imposed 
by  the  apostles),  leads  to  blood  and  stoning  to  death,  those 
that  do  but  gather  sticks  thereon  ',  a  thing  which  no  way  be- 
comes the  Grospel."  And  in  a  previous  paragraph,  it  is  held 
that  as  "  when  temple  worship  and  altar  worship,  and  the  sa- 
crifices of  the  Levitical  Priesthood  fell,  down  also  came  the 
things  themselves :  so,  when  the  service  or  shadow  and  cere- 
monies of  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  fell,  the  seventh-day  Sab- 
hath  fell  liheicise  !"  (ques.  v.)  I  trust  these  extracts  do  not 
happen  to  be  "  unguarded  language,"  and  that  they  do  not 
"  give  a  wrong  coloring"  to  the  author's  real  opinion. 

In  my  friend's  concluding  paragraph,  he  sums  up  with  an 
air  of  self-satisfaction.  "Now,  in  whatever  details  I  difi"er 
from  BuNYAN  or  Calvin,  it  is  clear  that  oiu^  fundamental 
positions  are  the  same.  I  commend  this  fact  to  my  friend  W. 
B.  T."  (p.  194.)  I  commend  to  J.  N.  B.  the  fact  that  he  is 
most  sadly  mistaken  I  Their  "fundamental  positions"  are  as 
opposite  to  7as, as  are  the  antipodes.  They  teach,  "in  demon- 
stration of  the  spirit  and  of  power,"  that  the  fourth  command- 
ment is  gone  to  its  grave,  with  the  "signs"  and  "shadows"  of 
the  Old  Testament.     J.  N.  B.  tells  us  that  "  the  Fourth  Com- 


286  ABROGATION  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Concluding  sentiments. 

mandment,  like  the  rest  of  the  Decalogue,  is  a  universal  and 
perpetual  Law :"  and  that  Jesus  "honored  it  as  immutable!" 
He  challenges  their  "fundamental  position"  with  the  defiant 
"  Efface  it  if  you  can  !     Attempt  it  if  you  dare  !''* 

May  the  time  speedily  arrive,  when  my  friend  J.  N.  B.  can 
say  with  propriety:  "  Our  fundamental  positions  are  now  the 
same  V  when,  "  rooted  and  built  up,  and  stablished  in  the  faith 
as  he  is  taught"  in  the  Scriptures,  instead  of  following  "  after 
the  tradition  of  men,"  he  shall  discard  "vain  strivings  and 
unprofitable  contentions  about '  the  Lawf  "  and  when  no  longer 
"carried  about  with  strange  doctrines,"  he  shall  "be  ready  to 
give  AN  ANSWER,  to  every  man  that  asketh  a  reason  of  the 
hope  that  is  in  him." 

I  have  more  than  accomplished  my  task;  as  I  have  more 
than  exceeded  my  proper  limits.  With  sentiments  of  respect, 
and  unaffected  regard  for  my  friend  J.  N.  B.,  I  take  leave  of 
him,  by  a  recapitulation  and  reaffirmation  of  my  "  Six  Pro- 
positions,^' as  incontrovertibly  established. 

I.  The  only  weekly  Sabbath  enjoined  or  alluded  to  (directly 
or  indirectly),  in  either  the  Old  or  New  Testament,  is  that  of 
Saturday — "the  seventh  day,"  indicative  of  "the  sabbath  of 
the  Lord"  after  his  six  days'  labor. 

II.  This  institution  was  a  "  strictly  Jewish  and  ceremonial" 
one  : — Jewish,  in  being  "  first  made  known  to  the  Israelites 
by  the  hand  of  Moses,"  in  being  commemorative  of  their  de- 
liverance from  servitude,  and  in  being  a  peculiar  "  sign  of 
their  separation"  from  other  nations;  and  ceremonial,  in  being 
subservient  to  expediency,  in  being  exactly  parallel  in  its 
claims  to  any  other  ritual  observance,  and  in  being  intended 

*  When  my  friend  penned  his  concluding  and  doubtless  earnest 
aspiration  (jo.  194),  "May  crowns  as  bright  [as  those  of  Calvin  and 
Bunyan]  be  ours  in  the  clay  of  the  Lord's  coming!" — he  must  have 
forgotten  or  abandoned  his  former  dogma  [p.  59),  that  whosoever 
should  break  the  fourth  commandment,  "  and  teach  men  so,  shall  be 
called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven!" 


MR.  Taylor's  third  reply.  287 

The  "  Six  Propositions." 

but  as  a  typ3  or  "  shadow"  of  a  succeeding  spiritual  Sabbat- 
ism. 

<■  III.  In  full  illustration  of  all  which,  Jesus  openly,  repeat- 
edly, and  studiously  violated  the  Sabbath ;  and  in  assertion  of 
his  pre-eminent  authority  to  neglect  it,  or  set  it  aside  (as  being 
himself  its  very  "body"  and  true  fulfilment),  claimed  to  be 
absolute  "Lord"  of  the  Institution. 

IV.  Wherefore,  its  observance  never  received  the  slightest 
token  of  encouragement  in  the  New  Testament,  nor  its  dese- 
cration the  slightest  intimation  of  disapproval : — an  afl&rmation 
which  cannot  be  made  of  any  known  Christian  duty. 

V.  Moreover,  by  a  formal  canon  of  the  apostolic  Council  at 
Jerusalem,  the  Gentile  Churches  were  declared  entirely  free 
from  Sabbath  observance ;  being  explicitly  exempted  from 
obligation  to  auy  part  of  "the  Law  of  Moses,"  excepting 
three  "necessary  things"  which  did  not  include  this  ordinance. 

VI.  And  accordingly,  throughout  the  Apostolic  Epistles, 
the  Sabbath  is  invariahly  referred  to  as  a  provisional  symbol, 
entirely  superseded  by  the  advent  of  "the  true  image  of  the 
thing"  it  did  but  shadow ;  the  enjoyment  of  the  spiritual 
Rest  of  the  Gospel,  rendering  the  continued  observance  of  the 
carnal  Rest  of  the  Law,  inappropriate  and  unchristian. 

W.  B.  T. 


NOTES 


NOTE  A.— (From  page  222.) 
"After  Eight  Days." — Johi  xx.  26. 

In  noticing  the  objection  to  the  popular  assumption — de- 
rived from  the  literal  reading  of  the  text  ^^  after  eight  days'' 
— J.  N.  B.  replies  {p.  185)  :  "But  this  is  contrary  to  Jewish 
usage,  as  well  as  Christian.  As  well  might  he  object  to 
Christ's  resurrection  on  '  the  third  day/  from  the  phrase  '  after 
three  days  I  will  rise  again.' — Matt,  xxvii.  63,  64."  My 
friend  mistakes  the  point.  The  day  of  the  resurrection  is  not 
proved  hy  the  expression  "  after  three  days" — but  by  inde- 
pendent and  explicit  testimony.  His  quotation  merely  goes 
to  show  that  the  phrase  in  question  may  have  the  meaning  he 
assigns  to  it  (which  I  never  denied) ;  it  in  no  wise  proves  that 
it  must  have  that  meaning.  I  contend  that  the  primary  import 
of  "«/);er  three  days,"  or  '^  after  eight  days,"  is  its  literal 
meaning  :  modified  in  the  one  case  by  direct  counter  evidence, 
and  in  the  other  case  wholly  unmodified. 

J.  N.  B.  will  not  doubt  that  Jonah  was  literally  '4hree  days 
and  three  nights"  in  the  fish  that  swallowed  him.  (Jonah  i. 
17.)  Can  I  prove  to  him  that  the  prophet  was  there  only 
one  day  and  two  nights,  by  citing  the  instance  of  one  who  was 
buried  from  Friday  evening  until  Sunday  morning,  and  yet 
was  said  to  be  "  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the 
earth?"  {Matt.  xii.  40.)  I  may  succeed  in  showing  that 
the  half  period  is  a  possible  construction :  he  will  hardly  be 
satisfied  that  it  is  a  necessary  one,  or  even  a  prohahh  one. 
25 


290  NOTES. 


Yet  here  an  interment  of  36  hours  is  measured  by  the  same 
terms  as  one  of  72  hours.  In  like  manner,  ^^  after  eight- 
days'^  may  mean  just  a  week;  but  I  shall  require  decisive 
proof,  before  believing  that  it  here  does  mean  it.  My  friend's 
''  Jewish  usuage,  as  well  as  Christian/^  he  cannot  establish. 
I  hesitate  not  to  say,  that  there  is  no  Hebrew  or  Jewish  idiom 
to  countenance  it.* 

The  capabilities  of  language,  under  my  friend's  horticultural 
treatment,  are,  by  the  way,  somewhat  surprising.  In  part 
II.  of  his  Reply  (^.  174),  we  have  the  following:  ^''^ After 
six  days,'  says  Matthew  (xvii.  1) — ^ about  eight  days,'  says 
Luke  (ix.  28) — was  the  Transfiguration.  Why  this  specifica- 
tion of  time?"  he  naively  asks.  And  explaining  the  indefinite 
^''after'^  by  the  still  more  indefinite  ^^  about,''  and  dividing  the 
difierence,  he  thinks  ^^it  is  \i\^\j  probable,  to  say  the  least,'* 
that  exactly  ^'  one  week"  had  elapsed.  So,  whether  an  occur- 
rence be  "after  six  days,"  or  after  seven  days,  or  ''after  eight 
days,"  or  anywhere  ^^  aboui'  either  of  these  periods,  it  is 
precisely  the  same  in  my  friend's  dialectics; — else  why  so  exact 
a  specification ! 

He  seems  to  forget,  too,  that  even  an  exact  ''specification  of 
time"  is  nothing  to  his  argument,  unless  it  be  shown  that  the 
specification  was  relative — that  this  precise  time  determined 
the  occurrence. f  Ever  neglecting  the  essential,  he  builds 
wholly  on  the  accidental. 


*  Hetlin,  an  English  Divine  of  the  seventeenth  centuiy ,  observes  upon 
the  passage  in  dispute,  "But  where  the  Greek  text  reads  it  ^g9'  hfA.^eti 
oJtTfltf  (post  octo  dies  in  the  Vulgar  Latin — 'after  eight  days'  according 
to  our  English  Bibles),  that  should  be  rather  understood  of  the  ninth 
or  tenth,  than  the  eighth  day  after."     (History  of  the  Sabbath.') 

I  "  We  sailed  away  .  .  .  and  came  to  Troas  in  five  days."  (Acts 
XX.  G.)  "We  sailed  thence,  and  came  the  iiext  day  over  against  Chios ; 
and  the  next  day  we  arrived  at  Samos ;  and  the  next  day  we  came  to 
Miletus."  (ib.  xx.  15.)  "And  after /ye  days,"  &c.  (ib.  xxiv.  1.)  "This 
day  is  the  fourtee7ith  day,"  &c.  (ib.  xxvii.  33.)  "We  tarried  there 
three  days"  (ib.  xxviii.  12),  &c.  &c. — "Why  this  specification  of  time, 
if  no  special  importance  was  attached  to  it?" — J.  N.  B. 


NOTES.  291 


NOTE  B.— (From  page  228.) 
"The  Day  of  Pentecost." — Acts  ii.  1. 

While  I  consider  it  altogether  unimportant  to  the  present 
discussion  to  inquire  into  the  day  of  the  week  upon  which  the 
celebrated  Pentecost  happened  to  occur,  I  think  that  as  a 
collateral  question  of  Biblical  illustration,  it  has  sufficient  in- 
terest to  justify  a  very  brief  examination. 

"The  day  of  Pentecost,"  says  J.  N.  B.  (p.  185),  "it  is  well 
known,  was  cdicays  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  ! — Levit.  xxiii. 
15 — 21.''  So  palpable  an  inaccuracy  in  one  who  has  studied 
the  Bible  for  ^^  thirty  years'^  {p.  71),  is  really  surprising.* 
The  "  sabbath"  mentioned  in  Levit.  xxiii.  15  has  no  relation 
whatever  to  the  seventh-day  rest,  as  my  friend  has  erroneously 
understood  the  text.  By  comparing  this  verse  with  the  7th 
and  11th  of  the  same  chapter,  he  will  see  that  it  designates 
"the  first  of  unleavened  bread,"  whatever  day  of  the  week 
that  might  be.  The  day  of  Pentecost,  "it  is  well  known,"  was 
always  ih.^ fiftieth  day  after  the  first  of  unleavened  bread ;  which 
was  determined  by  the  day  of  the  month  (the  15th),  and 
never  by  the  day  of  the  iGeek.  It  was  not — (like  its  offspring 
''  Easter'')— 2,  "movable  festival." 

I  will  now  attempt  to  compute  for  my  friend  the  probable 
day  of  Acts  ii.  1.  It  is  related  by  Matthew  (xxvi.  17 — 21; 
see,  also,  Mark  xiv.  12 — 17)  that,  on  the  day  preceding  the 
Crucifixion,  or  Thursday,  the  discij^les  prepared  the  "passover" 
or  paschal  offering,  and  that  on  the  evening  (by  Jewish  com- 
putation, the  eve  of  Friday)  the  passover  was  eaten.  {Matt. 
xxvi.  20;  Mark  xiv.  17.)  This  Thursday  was  therefore  "the 
fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month,"  Ahih  or  Nisan  {Levit.  xxiii. 

*  Even  Bible  read  Buxyan  makes  the  same  blunder  ;  and  I  siispect 
has  been  the  one  to  lead  my  friend  "into  the  ditch." — "Great  men 
are  not  always  wise." 


292  NOTES. 


5),  on  the  oflernoon  of  which  the  paschal  lamb  was  always 
sacrificed,  to  be  eaten  at  evening,  on  "the  first  of  unleavened 
bread."  {Deut.  xvi.  6,  7',  Exod.  xii.  8.)  Friday  was  the  15th, 
"the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread."  {Matt.  xxvi.  17 ;  Levit. 
xxiii.  6.)  This  festival  continued  one  week  (extending  from 
the  15th  of  Abib  to  the  21st,  inclusive — Exod.  xii.  18),  of  which 
week  the  first  and  last  days  (the  15th  and  21st)  were  both 
accounted  "sabbaths."  {Levit.  xxiii.  7,  8;  Exod.  xii.  16.) 
Saturday  was  the  16th  (the  day  after  the  first  "sabbath"),  on 
which  was  the  wave-offering.  {Levit.  xxiii.  11.)  Seven  com- 
plete weeks  (a  "  week  of  weeks,"  as  Josephus  calls  it)  were 
counted  from  this  16th  day,  inclusive  (xxiii.  15),  which  termi- 
nated with  Friday,  and  on  the  next  day,  or  Saturday,  ivas 
^'the  day  of  Pentecost  V     (xxiii.  16,  21.) 

It  is  absolutely  incontrovertible  that,  if  Matthew's  account 
be  correct,  tlie  Pentecost  could  not  possibly  have  been  on  Sun- 
day!  This  "fact"  may  be  digested  by  "learned"  Sunday 
Sabbatarians,  at  the  ruminations  of  their  studious  leisure.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  Sunday  teas  the  Pentecost,  then  the  passover 
could  not  have  been  eaten  on  Thursday  evening,  and  Friday 
could  not  have  been  "  the  first  of  unleavened  bread."  If  we 
understand  Matthew  (xxvi.  17)  as  saying  that  Thursday  was 
"  the  first  day  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread,"  this  only 
makes  the  matter  worse;  for  then  the  day  of  Pentecost  was 
infallibly  Friday !  By  the  unvarying  system  of  the  Jewish 
ritual,  the  Pentecost  must  occur  just  one  day  later  in  the  week 
than  the  first  of  unleavened  bread. 

After  rummaging  a  host  of  Sunday  Sabbatarian  Treatises 
(which  generally  display  a  harmony  and  facility  of  assumption 
as  remarkable  as  it  is  edifying),  I  find,  in  Ligiitfoote's  "  Com- 
mentary on  the  Actsj"  an  attempt  at  sustaining  the  common 
dogma.  He  reckons  (according  to  Matthew)  that  Thursday 
was  the  "  preparation"  (14th  of  the  month),  Friday  the  first 
of  unleavened  bread  (15th),  and  Saturday,  or  the  Sabbath,  the 
day  of  the  wave-sheaf  offering  (16th) ;  after  which  he  counts 
the  fifty  days,  as  excluding  the  16th,  and  added  to  it.  (  Com. 
in  Acts  ii.)     Such  a  mistake  is  inexcusable  in  a  Biblical  ex- 


NOTES.  293 


pounder.*  The  count  Seyms  on  '^  the  morrow  after  the  sab- 
bath/' that  is,  on  the  second  of  unleavened  bread.  ^'  From  the 
day  that  ye  brought  the  sheaf  of  the  wave-offering,  seven 
sabbaths  shall  be  complete. '^  {Levit.  xxiii.  15.)  The  day  of 
the  wave-offering  (the  16th)  was  always  the  first  of  the  fifty 
daysf  (see  Dent.  xvi.  9),  consequently  the  Pentecost  always 
came  on  the  same  day  of  the  week.  I  am  informed,  by  a 
learned  Jewish  Teacher, j  that  there  can  be  no  evasion  here; 
that  ''the  computation  is  absolute  and  indisputable;  the  Pen- 
tecost always  occurs  on  the  same  day  of  the  week  as  the  wave- 
offering.'^  And  to  make  Sunday  a  Pentecost,  the  passover  and 
unleavened  bread  must  commence  on  Friday  evening  !§ 

The  last  evangelist,  indeed,  clearly  favors  this  alternative, 
for  he  tells  us  {John  xix.  14)  that  the  day  of  the  crucifixion 
was  "the  preparation  of  the  passover,"]]  necessarily  the  14th 
of  Ahib.  {Exod.  xii.  6 ;  2  Ghron.  xxxv.  1,  16.)  And  since 
the  crucifixion  is  known  to  have  taken  place  on  Friday  ("  the 

*  In  a  Sabbatarian  Essay,  entitled,  "  Brief  Remarks  on  the  History, 
Authority,  and  Use  of  the  Sabbath,"  by  J.  J.  Gukney,  the  same  cal- 
culation is  very  carefully  gone  through.  Following  his  predecessor, 
i\Ir.  Guruey  has  in  this  committed  a  blunder,  or  perpetrated  an  artifice. 

f  "The  day  of  Pentecost  was  the  fiftieth  day  from  the  day  of  the 
wave-offering ;  but,  in  the  number  of  the  fifty  days,  was  both  the  day  of 
the  wave-offering  and  of  Pentecost  included ;  as  now,  among  the  Chris- 
tians, still  it  is."  Bishop  Pearson.  (Ex^yosidon  of  the  Creed,  art.  v. — 
"the  third  day.") 

J  The  Rev.  I.  Leeser,  of  Philadelphia,  editor  of  "  The  Occident.'" 

I  This  hypothesis  is  adopted  by  Baxter,  who  says:  "The  Passover 
that  year  fell  on  the  Sabbath  day,  and  Pentecost  was  fifty  days  after 
the  Passover,  which  falleth  out  on  the  Lord's  day."  (Pract.  Works, 
vol.  iii.  "Lord's  day,"  ch.  5.)  This  arrives  at  the  conclusion  desired 
by  Lightfoote  and  Mr.  Guruey,  without  recourse  to  their  fallacious 
premises. 

II  He  further  confirms  this  by  alluding  to  the  care  of  the  Jews  during 
the  trial,  not  to  defile  themselves  before  eating  the  passover  {.lohti  xviii. 
28 ;  see  Numb.  ix.  6  ;  Ezra  vi.  20) ;  and  he  also  speaks  of  the  follow- 
ing Sabbath  day  (Saturday)  being  a  "high  day"  {John  xix.  31),  as  it 
would  be  if  the  first  of  unleavened  bread. 

25* 


294  NOTES. 


preparation  of  the  Sabbath" — Mark  xv.  42  ',  Luke  xxiii.  54 ; 
John  xix.  31),  Sunday  would  of  course  be  the  day  of  the 
*'  wave-sheaf.''  But  while  this  construction  would  gratify  my 
friend,  and  while,  moreover,  it  would  present  the  happy  cir- 
cumstance of  making  the  great  Christian  Offering  strictly 
coincident  in  point  of  time  with  its  archetype,  the  paschal  sacri- 
fice, it  is  attended  with  the  insurmountable  difficulty  (besides 
being  explicitly  contradicted  by  all  the  other  evangelists)  that 
Jesus  could  not  have  partaken  of  the  passover  !  And  it  was 
impossible  for  him,  as  a  Jew,  to  have  kept  the  passover  on  any 
other  day  than  that  appointed  by  the  law.* 

On  the  other  hand,  clear  and  conclusive  as  is  the  concurrent 
testimony  of  Matthew  (xxvi.  17),  Mark  (xiv.  12),  and  Luke 
(xxii.  7),  against  the  Sunday  interpreters,  candor  requires  me 
to  notice  that  these  texts,  in  the  judgment  of  the  learned, 
likewise  labor  under  two  remarkable  difficulties.  In  the  first 
place,  by  a  peculiarity  of  the  Hebrew  calendar,  the  1st,  and 
consequently  the  15th  of  Ahih,  never  falls  on  Friday;  the 
object  of  which  arrangement  is  to  prevent  the  annual  ''day  of 
atonement"  {Levit.  xxiii.  27)  falling  contiguous  to  the  weekly 
Sabbath,  since  it  would  be  impossible  (in  reference  to  food,  &c.) 
to  observe  two  successive  days  of  ahsolute  "rest"  with  the 
strictness  required  by  the  law.  (^Ejcod.  xvi.  23;  xxxv.  3.) 
All  the  other  Jewish  holy  days  were  simple  "  sabbaths,"  ex- 
acting no  rigid  observance,  and  yielding  to  lighter  emergencies. 
But  "the  tenth  day  of  the  seventh  month,"  like  "the  seventh 

*  HoRXE,  in  Lis  '■'■  Infroduciion  to  the  IIoIt/  Scriptures,^'  ihinks  it  "not 
improbable  that  some  difference  or  mistake  miffht  arise  in  determining 
the  new-moon!"  and  that  "such  a  discordance  miffht  easily  arise  be- 
tween the  rival  and  hostile  sects  of  Pharisees  and  Sadducees ;  and  such 
a  difference,  it  has  been  conjectured,  did  exist  at  the  time  Jesus  Christ 
celebrated  the  passover  with  his  disciples,  one  whole  day  before  the 
Pharisees  offered  their  paschal  sacrifice!"  {Introduc.  vol.  iii.  part  iii. 
ch.  4.)  We  have  the  unfortunate  dilemma  that  Jesus  either  kept  the 
right  day  or  the  wrong  one.  "  He  that  is  able  to  receive  it,  let  him 
receive  it!" 


NOTES.  295 


day'^  of  the  week,  was  emphatically  \yD2^  r\2\l^  (shabhath  shab- 
lathon), ' '  a  rest  day  for  rest/'  *  a  Sabbath  of  sabbaths, — enj  oined 
with  peculiar  solemnity,  and  enforced  by  the  sternest  sanctions. f 
There  is  every  probability  that  the  calendar  was  in  this  respect 
the  same  in  apostolic  times  as  at  present,  since  the  same  neces- 
sity for  the  arrangement  had  existence  then. 

The  second  difficulty  in  these  texts  arises  from  the  well-known 
occurrence  of  the  crucifixion  on  Friday.  It  was  almost  as 
impossible  for  the  Jews  to  have  tolerated  an  execution  upon 
^'  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread"  (see  Exod.  xii.  16;  Levit. 
xxiii.  7  J  also,  Mark  xiv.  2)  as  upon  the  weekly  "  Sabbath." 
This  forms  a  very  serious  additional  obstacle,  therefore,  to  that 
festival  having  commenced  on  Friday. 

Looking  merely  at  the  letter  of  these  texts,  they  all  seem 
to  say  that  Thursday  was  the  first  of  unleavened  bread :  but 
-while  this  construction  avoids  the  foregoing  objections,  it  in- 
volves the  new  one,  that  the  passover  could  not  have  been 
killed  upon  it  (as  intimated  in  Mark  xiv.  12) ;  since  this  must 
always  be  prepared  on  the  preceding  afternoon  (2  Chron. 
XXXV.  1;  Levit.  xxiii.  5,  6);  whence  the  passover  must  have 
been  eaten,  and  the  Eucharist  instituted  on  Wednesday  even- 
ing, and  not  on  Thursday  evening,  as  is  generally  supposed. 
Whatever  solution  of  these  difficulties  may  be  suggested,  it  is 
almost  certain  that  the  Pentecost  did  not  occur  on  Sunday. 

*  In  our  version  not  very  forcibly  rendered,  "a  Sabbath  of  rest." 
Agreeably  to  the  well-known  Hebrew  idiom,  intensity  was  always  ex- 
pressed either  by  a  repetition,  or  by  the  use  of  some  tantologous  phrase. 
The  double  expression  peculiar  to  these  ttvo,  of  all  the  Jewish  sabbaths, 
was  undoubtedly  employed  with  the  intention  of  impressing  the  pre- 
eminent sanctity  of  these  two  holy  days,  and  the  necessity  of  their 
strictest  observance.  The  slightest  infraction  of  either  was  punishable 
with  death!  An  attention  to  these  circumstances  will  serve  to  elucidate 
much  in  the  New  Testament  which  Sabbatarians  find  it  convenient  to 
gloss  over  as  "Pharisaic  construction  I" 

f  Compare  Levit.  xxiii.  24 — 32,  with  Exod.  xxxi.  14 — 17. 


296  NOTES. 


NOTE  C— (From  page  240.) 
"The  Lord's  Day.''— Rev.  i.  10. 

Not  only  is  there  nothing  whatever  to  give  plausibility  to 
the  "guess"  that  the  apocalyptic  "Lord's  clay"  signified  Sun- 
day, but  there  are  many  considerations  powerfully  calculated 
to  discountenance  it. 

1.  The  writer  could  not  design  to  mark  out  a  day  of  re- 
ligious observance,  since  the  subject  of  Christian  ceremonies 
was  wholly  foreign  to  the  objects  of  his  discourse.  The  book 
professes  to  be  a  "Revelation"  of  the  hereafter:  it  has  no- 
thing to  do  with  designating  or  upholding  the  observance  of 
temporal  "holy  days." 

2.  If  a  current  day  was  intended,  the  only  day  bearing  this 
definition,  in  either  the  Old  or  New  Testament,  is  Saturday, 
"the  seventh  day"  of  the  week.   {Exod.  xx.  10.) 

3.  But  it  is  altogether  improbable  that  a  literal  day  could 
have  been  intended,  in  a  work  which  is  characterized  through- 
out by  the  most  remarkable  flights  of  figurative  rhapsody. 
The  inspirations  of  the  prophetic  spirit  were  not  confined  to 
particular  days.  It  was  neither  the  Jirst  nor  the  last  day  of 
the  week  that  could  be  signalized  as  the  occasion  of  the  influ- 
ence; and  it  seems  almost  puerile  to  suppose  that  it  should  be 
specified. 

4.  There  is  extant  no  trace  of  evidence  that  the  term 
"Lord's  day"  was  ever  applied  to  Sunday  till  near  the  close  of 
the  second  century  !  Throughout  the  first  150  years  of  the 
Christian  era,  no  writer,  apostolic  or  patristic,  ever  happens 
once  to  use  the  expression.  The  first  instance  I  can  discover 
of  its  application  to  Sunday  occurs  in  an  epistle  of  Dionysius, 
Bishop  of  Corinth,  whose  earliest  assignable  date  is  A.  D.  170. 
Not  only  is  it  unknown  in  the  canonical  epistles  (which  cover 
a  space  of  thirty  or  forty  years  of  ecclesiastical  history),  but 


NOTES.  297 


neither  in  the  apocryphal  epistle  ascribed  to  Barnabas,  nor  in 
the  writings  of  Clement  of  Rome  (a.  d.  90),  of  Ignatius* 
(a.  d.  100),  of  PoLYCARP  (a.  d.  108),  of  JusTiN  (a.  d.  145), 
or  of  Iren^us  (a.  d.  167),  is  the  appellation  to  be  met 
with  J  although  these  Fathers  all  refer  to  religious  observances, 
and  one  or  two  of  them  to  the  commemoration  of  the  first  day 
of  the  week.  Such  extended  and  persistent  silence  is  more 
than  negative  evidence ;  it  is  wholly  inexplicable  on  the  Sab- 
batarian conjecture ;  it  is  convicting  demonstration  that  the 
conjecture  is  false.  The  phrase  "Lord's  day''  could  not  have 
had,  at  the  time  Eev.  i.  10  was  written,  the  meaning  so  gratui- 
tously ascribed  to  it,  without  being  in  universal  and  familiar 
use.  Its  first  employment  (possibly  as  early  as  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,  or  a  quarter  of  a  century  before  the  allu- 
sion of  DiONYSius),  was  most  likely  an  adaptation  from  this 
text. 

5.  The  probable  meaning  of  the  expression  is  disclosed  by  the 
book  itself  {Rev.  vi.  17 ;  xvi.  14) ;  an  application  of  frequent 
occurrence  both  in  the  New  Testament  (1  Cor.  i.  8,  v.  5;  2  Coi\ 
i.  14;  1  Thess.  v.  2 ;  2  Pet.  iii.  10,  &c.)  ;  and  in  the  Old 
(^Isai.  xiii.  6,  9;  Joel  i.  15  ;  ii.  1,  11,  31 ;  ZejyJi.  i.  14,  &c.). 
If  Kvpiaxov  fiftrtfov  (1  Cor.  xi.  20),  and  Secrtvov  or  tparts^a 
Kvfnov  (1  Cor.  X.  21),  are  convertible  phrases  designating  the 
same  thing,  what  can  be  more  obvious  than  that  Kvpiax*?  '^fjispa 
{Rev.  i.  10),  and  rjufpa  Krpioi;  (2  Pet.  iii.  10),  are  (in  the  absence 
of  any  conjiicting  applicatioii)  equally  convertible  designa- 
tions of  the  same  thing?  The  true  Protestant  will  always 
interpret  Scripture  by  Scripture  rather  than  by  tradition. f 

*  The  expression  "Lord's  day"  occui's  in  an  interpolated  epistle  of 
Ignatius  :  ("  Let  each  one  of  you  observe  the  Sabbath  spiritually,  and 

not  by  bodily  rest But  let  every  lover  of  Christ  commemorate 

the  Lord's  day  after  the  Sabbath")  ;  and  will  also  be  found  in  Arch- 
bishop \Vake's  translation  of  his  genuine  epistle,  commented  on  before 
[p.  96,  note),  neither  of  which  deserves  attention. 

f  "The  infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture,  is  the  Scrip- 
ture itself." — Presbyterian  and  Baptist  Cojifess.  of  Faith,  chap.  i. 
sec.  9. 


298  NOTES. 


Nor  is  it  any  valid  objection  that  the  subjects  immediately 
succeeding  this  contested  passage  (i.  10)  were  obviously  con- 
temporary with  the  occasion.  Surely  no  one  expects,  in  a 
production  like  this,  the  same  rigid  order  and  consecutive 
dependence  of  occurrence,  which  is  demanded  in  a  literal 
narrative.  The  "  high  argument"  of  this  apocalyptic  vision 
is  summed  up  by  the  prophet,  in  the  concise  declaration  of  the 
proem,  that  he  was  present  in  spirit  "  in  the  Lord's  day"  (sv 
jtvsvfiati  £v  T^ri  Kvf;)iaxri  riixs^a) ;  or,  as  the  particle  iv  may  be  trans- 
lated, ^'  at  the  Lord's  DAY."  And  hence,  after  the  preliminary 
exhortations  to  the  seven  churches  (occupying  the  first  three 
chapters,  and  which  are  merely  parenthetical),  he  commences 
immediately  with  the  epoch  to  which  (ev  rtvivixati)  he  was 
carried.  Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  the  expression  in 
Rev.  iv.  2  is  at  once  the  resumption  and  exemplification  of 
that  in  chap.  i.  10.  "I  was  'in  spirit' — at  the  Lord's  Day, 
and  heard  behind  me  a  great  voice  as  of  a  trumj)et,  saying  I 
am  'a'  and  'n,'  the  first  and  the  last:  and  what  thou  seest, 

write  in  a  book,  and  send  it  unto  the  seven  churches 

After  this,  I  looked,  and  behold  a  door  was  opened  in  Heaven  : 
and  the  first  voice  which  I  heard,  was  as  of  a  trumpet  talking 
with  me ;  which  said,  Come  up  hither,  and  I  will  show  thee 
things  which  must  be  hereafter.  And  immediately  I  was  '  in 
spirit :'  and  behold  a  Throne  was  set  in  Heaven,  and  One  sat 
on  the  Throne."  And  then  follows  the  great  drama  of  "The 
Lord's  Day," — at  which  "in  spirit"  the  transported  writer 
found  himself. 

In  view  of  all  this,  what  must  be  thought  of  the  prevalent 
dogma — announced  again,  and  again, — from  pulpit,  and  from 
pulpit, — with  all  the  assurance  of  infallible  inspiration,  and 
all  the  authority  of  clerical  dictation, — that  the  prophet  de- 
signed to  instruct  us  that  he  was  in  spirit — on  Sunday  !  and 
that,  therefore,  it  is  a  heinous  sin  to  work  upon  that  day  ! 


NOTES.  299 


NOTE  D.— (From  page  263.) 
The  Dominical  Sabbath. 

A  FULL  and  truthful  history  of  the  origin  of  the  Sunday 
Sabbath  would  form  an  interesting  chapter  in  the  Volume  of 
Ecclesiastical  Fabrications.  This  "Divine  legacy"  of  the 
church  owes  its  establishment  to  the  inspired  Emperor  CoN- 
STANTINE*  (a.  d.  321) ;  although,  as  a  learned  historian  has 
observed,  even  so  early  as  "the  end  of  the  second  century,  a 
false  application  of  this  kind  had  heguii  to  take  place.'^f  The 
voluntary  commemoration  of  the  resurrection,  by  a  celebration 
of  the  Eucharist  early  on  Sunday  morning,  may  indeed  be 
traced  back  somewhat  further,  though  with  an  obscurity  in- 
creasing as  we  ascend. 

The  earliest  explicit  account  we  have  of  any  ecclesiastical 
observance  of  this  day  is  found  in  the  Apology  of  Justin 
Martyr,  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  This 
writer,  while  affirming  that  the  Christians  of  his  time  observed 
no  Sabbath  (see  ante,  pp.  97,  248),  gives  an  interesting  ac- 
count of  the  celebration  of  "the  day  of  the  Sun,"  and  "the 

■^  The  edict  of  his  Catholic  Majesty  Coxstantine,  ordaining  the 
''Christian  Sabbath,"  is  as  follows  :  "  Let  all  judges,  and  people  of  the 
town,  rest,  and  all  the  yarious  trades  be  suspended,  on  the  venerable 
day  of  the  Sun  ['  venerabili  die  Solis'l-  Those  who  live  in  the  country, 
however,  may  freely  and  without  fault  attend  to  the  cultivation  of  their 
fields  (since  it  often  happens  that  no  other  day  may  be  so  suitable  for 
sowing  grain  and  planting  the  vine) ;  lest,  with  the  loss  of  favorable 
opportunity,  the  commodities  offered  by  Divine  Providence  should  be 
destroyed."  (Cod.  Justin,  lib.  iii.  tit.  12,  sect.  2,  3.)  Coxstantine 
also  ordained  that  Friday  (called  generally  "the  day  of  Venus")  should 
be  specially  observed,  and  that  the  various  days  consecrated  to  the  Saints 
and  Martj-rs  should  be  celebrated  in  the  churches.  (See  Eusebifs,  Vit. 
Constant,  lib.  iv.  cap.  18 — 20 ;  also,  Sozomen,  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  i.  cap.  8.) 

f  Neander.     See  ante,  p.  262. 


300  NOTES. 


first  of  light/'  by  assemblies,  public  readings,  exhortations, 
and  prayers. 

The  Roman  Pliny,  in  his  celebrated  letter  to  the  Emperor 
Trajan  (in  the  beginning  of  the  second  century),  relates  that 
the  Christians  of  his  Province  '^were  accustomed  to  meet  to- 
gether on  a  stated  day,  before  it  was  light  [f  stato  die^  ante 
lucew!\  and  sing  a  hymn,''  &c.,  and  then  separate;  after 
which  they  reassembled  at  a  common  meal.  As  the  Sabbath 
day  appears  to  have  been  quite  as  commonly  observed  at  this 
date  as  the  Sun's  day  (if  not  even  more  so),  it  is  just  as  pro- 
bable that  this  "stated  day"  referred  to  by  Pliny  was  the 
seventh  day,  as  that  it  was  the  first  day;  though  the  latter  is 
generally  taken  for  granted.  We  have  no  contemporary  record, 
unfortunately,  to  determine  positively  which  of  these  days  (or 
whether  either  of  them)  was  the  day  denoted.  The  custom  of 
assembling  "before  daylight"  was  obviously  adopted  that  it 
might  not  interrupt  the  labors  or  occupations  of  the  day,  a 
large  portion  of  these  early  disciples  belonging  to  the  servile 
and  laboring  classes. 

Ignatius,  who  wrote  at  the  close  of  the  first  century,  depre- 
cates the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  and  makes  no  allusion  to 
any  custom  of  observing  the  Sunday.  Indeed,  no  such  custom 
is  to  be  traced  in  any  writer  of  the  first  century!  And  when 
we  refer  to  the  New  Testament  writers,  the  only  passage  which 
might  seem,  at  first  sight,  to  indicate  a  public  distinction  of 
"  the  first  day"  (1  Cor.  xvi.  2),  proves,  on  a  careful  examina- 
tioUj  to  be  decidedly  repugnant  to  the  existence  of  Sunday 
assemblies. 


Date  Due 

<l) 

